[토지수용재결처분취소][공1995.12.1.(1005),3801]
(a) The form of a claim for adjudication under Article 25-3(1) of the Land Expropriation Act;
A. Although the grounds stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 16-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act are not clearly divided by item, if the contents are examined in detail, it seems that all the above matters are included in the above application. The purport of the Act is to clarify the intent of landowners, etc., and the claim for adjudication is a written act that does not require strict forms. Therefore, as long as landowners clearly express their intent to request adjudication in writing, the validity of the above claim is not denied, and if there is another person acting on behalf of the contractor, the request for adjudication may also be submitted to the agent, unless there are special circumstances.
(b)The argument that the late payment charges under Articles 25 and 25-3 of the Land Expropriation Act are granted only to the compensation of the market price at the time of the request for adjudication, or only an independent opinion that cannot be accepted in interpreting Articles 25 and 25-3 of the Land Expropriation Act.
Articles 25 and 25-3 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act
[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)
[Defendant-Appellant] Lee Jae-soo
Central Land Tribunal, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee
Busan High Court Decision 92Gu4499 delivered on May 11, 1994
Each appeal shall be dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.
1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the submission period).
In light of the records, we affirm the finding of facts by the court below in light of the records, and it cannot be said that there are no errors in the misapprehension of the deliberation or the misconception of facts against the rules of evidence. The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.
2. The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.
In the plaintiff's written application for adjudication, ① the name or title of a project operator under each subparagraph of Article 16-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act, ② the name and address of the landowner and person concerned, ④ the lot number and size of the land subject to the consultation, and ⑤ the type and quantity of the goods on the land, and the reasons for failing to comply with the consultation are clearly divided by item. However, if the contents are examined in detail, it appears that all the above matters are included in the above written application, and the purport of the law requiring the above form is to clarify the landowner's intent. Thus, the claim for adjudication is a written act which does not require strict form. Therefore, as long as the landowner clearly expresses his intention of request for adjudication in writing, the validity of the above claim is not denied even if the land owner omitted part of the matters under each subparagraph of Article 16-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act. In addition, if there is another person acting on behalf of the project operator, the application for adjudication can be submitted to the agency (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2902, July 13, 1993).
In addition, the argument that the late-payment penalty under Articles 25 and 25-3 of the Land Expropriation Act is granted only to the compensation of the market price at the time of the request for adjudication, or it is merely an independent opinion that cannot be accepted through the interpretation of Articles 25 and 25-3 of the Land Expropriation Act. The argument on this point is without merit
3. Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)