Even if public project operators acquire ownership by purchasing land through consultation with landowners and have the effect of land expropriation, if the land expropriation is not confirmed by the competent Land Expropriation Committee pursuant to Article 25-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, unlike the case of land expropriation by a decision of the Land Expropriation Committee, it shall not be interpreted that the land is originally acquired by the original owner, and it shall not be interpreted that the land was acquired by succession from the original owner. Therefore, to the purport that the court below is seen as the same, it is just that public project operators acquired ownership through consultation with landowners and transferred ownership but did not obtain confirmation of the completion of consultation, the defendant is deemed to have succeeded to the relevant land ownership from the former owner, and it is not reasonable and unreasonable in the misapprehension of legal principles as to land expropriation

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s assertion that the instant facilities installed by the farmland improvement association were illegal on the ground that it was consistent with the land located by various repair facilities located in a large scale, such as the installation of irrigation channels to distribute agricultural water, and that it was difficult to deem that the association has lost its ownership, and that it was an independent object from the land.

In holding consultations to expropriate the land of this case, it shall be deemed that consultation has been conducted to determine the value including the above facilities. The claim that the court below did not recognize the facilities and that the exchange of the facilities separate as it would be the amount of damages is not consistent with this case.

It is unreasonable to argue that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to conformity or illegality in calculating the amount of damages.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

The provisions of Article 173 of the Rural Community Modernization Promotion Act are intended to transfer the rights and obligations of landowners in the farmland improvement project implementation area to the successor to the ownership of the land. The purpose of acquiring land for the construction of military bases as alleged by the defendant is no superior. Therefore, it is not acceptable to argue that the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the Rural Community Modernization Promotion Act and the Land Expropriation Act, or by misapprehending the legal principles of the Rural Community Modernization Promotion Act and the Land Expropriation Act, or making it unreasonable, on the premise of the opposing opinion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Hah- Port (Presiding Justice)