[토지수용재결처분취소][공1990.1.1(863),57]
In case where a public project operator fails to pay or deposit the increased amount of compensation in the objection ruling, whether the decision becomes null and void (negative)
Inasmuch as the procedure of raising an objection under the Land Expropriation Act is a separate procedure that differs from the effect of final and conclusive judgment while the procedure of raising an objection against the original adjudication is different from the original adjudication, even if the entrepreneur did not pay or deposit the increased compensation within a given period, the said adjudication itself cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course.
Articles 75(2) and 65 of the Land Expropriation Act
Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3963 Decided June 13, 1989
Plaintiff
The Central Land Tribunal (Law Firm Hong, Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Hongk Law Firm, Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu9284 delivered on May 4, 1989
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The judgment below held that Article 65 (A) of the Land Expropriation Act provides for the "Invalidation of adjudication" on its ground that since property rights of landowners and their persons concerned or other persons having rights to the land to be expropriated or used or the goods on such land are intended to prevent unilaterally infringement by the public authority without any justifiable compensation, the invalidation provision of Article 65 of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis even at the time of the ruling by the Central Land Expropriation Committee under Article 75 of the same Act, and therefore, if the compensation is increased due to cancellation or change of original adjudication in the ruling by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, such adjudication shall also become null and void unless public project operators pay or deposit the increased compensation to the persons who are entitled to the compensation within one month from the date of receiving the original copy of the ruling on cancellation or change of the original adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee.
However, inasmuch as the procedure of raising an objection under the Land Expropriation Act is a separate procedure that differs from that of the original ruling and differs from that of the final ruling, even if the entrepreneur did not pay or deposit the increased compensation within a given period, the said ruling itself cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3963, Jun. 13, 1989).
On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the court below held that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the business entity of this case, deposited the increased compensation in its ruling after more than one month from the date of receiving the written ruling of objection, and that the ruling of objection in this case itself was invalidated is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on Articles 65 and 75 (2) of the same Act and the invalidation of the ruling. Therefore, the argument is reasonable.
Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices
Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)