[2] Where a project operator filed a claim for adjudication before the expiration of the period specified in the written request for compensation agreement but the project operator extended the period of consultation before the expiration of the period of consultation, the period of 60 days under Article 30(2) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (=the expiration date of the initial period of consultation)

[2] Articles 8(1) and 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, including the contents, form, and purport of Article 8(1) and Article 14(1) of the same Act, where a landowner or person concerned requests a project operator to file an application for adjudication before the expiration of the consultation period, the period of 60 days prescribed in Article 30(2) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 2011; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”) shall be calculated from the expiry date of the consultation period. If a public project approval takes place, the landowner and person concerned shall be obliged to preserve the land, etc. prescribed in Article 25 of the former Public Works Act. If the project operator grants the right to inspect the land and goods as stipulated in Article 27 of the same Act, it is reasonable to allow the landowner and person concerned to extend the consultation period by 60 days prior to the expiration date of the consultation period.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to Article 84(1) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 2011; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”), the Central Land Expropriation Committee may, in cases where an objection under Article 83 is raised and the adjudication under Article 34 is deemed illegal or unjust, either fully or partially cancel or alter the amount of compensation. According to Article 85, a project operator, landowner or person concerned may, in cases where an objection is raised under Article 34, file an administrative litigation within 60 days from the date of receipt of the written adjudication, and within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written adjudication (the first sentence of paragraph (1)) and (1) where an administrative litigation intended to file an objection under Article 34 (1) is a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation, if the person concerned is a landowner or person concerned, and if the project operator or person concerned is a landowner or person concerned, respectively (the person concerned).

Meanwhile, according to Article 30 of the former Public Works Act, when an agreement is not reached after a public announcement of project approval, any landowner and person concerned may request any project operator to file a written application for adjudication under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (paragraph (1)); when any project operator receives a request under the provisions of paragraph (1), he shall file an application for adjudication with the competent Land Tribunal under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree within 60 days from the date on which such request is made (the proviso to paragraph (2)); and when any project operator files an application for adjudication after the lapse of the period under the provisions of paragraph (2), he shall pay in addition to the compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal the amount calculated by applying the statutory interest rate under the provisions of Article 3 of the Act on

In addition, according to Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act”), the amount to be paid in addition to the provisions of Article 30(3) of the former Public Works Act shall be entered in a written ruling by the competent Land Tribunal, and the project operator shall pay it along with the compensation by the date of commencement of expropriation

In full view of the contents, form, and purport of the aforementioned relevant statutes, the additional charges for delay under Article 30(3) of the former Public Works Act, if a project operator files an application for adjudication after the lapse of 60 days from the time when the application for adjudication was filed, shall be paid in addition to the compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal (hereinafter “adjudication compensation”), and shall be indirectly forced by the project operator to file an application for adjudication within the period prescribed by the former Public Works Act, and at the same time compensates for losses to landowners and persons concerned, and shall be the money with the nature of compensating for losses arising from the delay of the application for adjudication. As such, inasmuch as a lawsuit on the increase and decrease of the adjudication compensation was filed within the filing period, it is reasonable to view that the additional charges for delay can be filed through the modification of the purport of the claim in the litigation procedure without being excluded from

Meanwhile, Article 84 of the former Public Works Act provides that the Central Land Tribunal shall deliberate on the illegality or illegality of the adjudication of expropriation, and does not restrict the deliberation only on the grounds of objection stated in the written objection. Thus, barring any special circumstance, an objection shall be effective as a whole the adjudication of expropriation, and in litigation concerning the increase or decrease of compensation, the defect of the adjudication of expropriation which is not a ground for objection as well as the unique reason for the adjudication of expropriation may be asserted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu288, Feb. 12, 1991; 93Nu20627, Sept. 15, 195).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and determined that the lawsuit of this case, which is the lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation for adjudication, was clearly filed on October 27, 2008, which is 60 days from the date of service of the written adjudication of acceptance, and thus, even if the plaintiffs thereafter filed a claim for additional dues on the compensation for adjudication in the litigation of this case, this part of the lawsuit cannot be deemed to have been subject to the time of filing the lawsuit. Meanwhile, even if the plaintiffs 7, 13, and 22 did not dispute about the delayed portion at the time of filing the objection against the adjudication of acceptance, the court below determined that

In light of the above legal principles and the records, such determination by the court below is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit related to the claim

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the main sentence of Article 8 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act, when a project operator intends to consult under Article 16 of the former Public Works Act, he/she shall notify the landowner and person concerned of the period, place and method of consultation ( subparagraph 1), timing, method and amount of compensation ( subparagraph 2), required documents, etc. necessary for concluding a contract. According to Article 14 (1) of the former Public Works Act, when the landowner and person concerned intend to file a claim for adjudication under Article 30 (1) of the former Public Works Act after the period of consultation under Article 8 (1) 1 expires, he/she shall submit a written request for adjudication, such as the name or title of the project operator ( subparagraph 1), type and name of the public work, name or name of the landowner and person concerned ( subparagraph 2), land category, land category and area of the land, type, structure and quantity of the goods on the land (Article 30 (1) 4).

In addition to the contents, form, and purport of the above-mentioned laws and regulations, where landowners and persons concerned have filed a request for adjudication before the expiration of the consultation period, the period of 60 days under Article 30(2) of the former Public Works Act shall be calculated from the expiry date of the consultation period (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2902, Jul. 13, 1993). If a public announcement of project is made, landowners and persons concerned are liable for preservation of land, etc. under Article 25 of the former Public Works Act. If a project operator is granted the right to investigate land and things under Article 27 of the former Public Works Act, the permission for extension of the consultation period is likely to extend the above substantial disadvantage if the project operator grants the right to investigate land and things under Article 27 of the former Public Works Act, and allowing the extension of the consultation period to landowners and persons concerned for an application for adjudication even before the expiration date of the consultation period. In full view of the above, it is reasonable to view that the initial consultation period may result in an unreasonable result in the project operator’s request for adjudication.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and determined that, inasmuch as the plaintiffs filed an application for adjudication against the defendants since the public announcement of project approval was made and the agreement was not reached, even if the defendants arbitrarily extended the consultation period, the defendants shall file an application for adjudication within 60 days from September 7, 2007, which was the expiration date of the initial consultation period, and if not, they are liable to pay additional dues for delay from the expiration date of the above 60-day period.

In light of the above legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the existence of the obligation of payment

3. As to the third ground for appeal

In assessing the amount of compensation for the expropriation and use of land, all the factors cited by the relevant statutes shall be considered in detail and comprehensively. However, even if all the detailed parts of the calculation factors are stated in daily or the impact of the assessment factors on the assessment factors is not expressed numerically, there is an explanation to the extent that the assessment factors may objectively be paid, while the details and degree of consideration by each factor can be objectively paid (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Du1505 delivered on May 26, 1998; 2002Du2727 delivered on June 28, 2002, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in the judgment, and determined that the appraisal of the court of the first instance is not illegal since the appraisal of the non-party to the appraiser of the first instance court stated the price calculation factors in a specific and clear manner and it is possible to identify how the factors were taken into account.

In light of the above legal principles and records, such judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on appraisal as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. On the other hand, the transaction case in the transaction comparison law, which is the appraisal method for the obstacles of this case, includes the case where the appraisal is made for the auction of other goods which are identical or similar to the objects. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance that adopted the appraisal value of one of the obstacles of this case as the transaction case, which adopted the appraisal value of one of the sectional ownership,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and 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.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)