According to the records, the plaintiffs' claim for this case is sought against the defendant for the return of unjust enrichment from the lag party. Thus, the court below's decision is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the lag procedure under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the land expropriation of this case was null and void since the defendant market price had no evidence to recognize the project approval of the above Minister of Construction and Transportation since the defendant market price had to construct the road on July 3, 1967 with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation in order to execute the road expansion construction project in accordance with the urban planning as the company's owner, but the plaintiffs failed to purchase the land, deposited the prescribed compensation and acquired the ownership of the real estate in this case after obtaining the adjudication in accordance with the Land Expropriation Act of April 29, 1968.

According to Article 11(2) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 983, Apr. 11, 1963; Act No. 1322, Apr. 11, 1963), which had been in force at the time of the above land expropriation of the above land on the above land, where the land is expropriated or used for the urban planning project as stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 1 and 3 of the same Act, the urban planning decision as stipulated in Article 4 of the Land Expropriation Act shall be deemed as the public announcement of the land tax as stipulated in Article 20 of the Land Expropriation Act, with the approval of the project as stipulated in Article 14 of the same Act, and the court below should have determined that the above real estate is a land necessary for the urban planning project, and thus, it shall not be deemed that there was a legitimate decision of the land expropriation of the above land without the approval of the project under Article 14 of the above Urban Planning Act, and it shall not be deemed that there was a legitimate decision of the court below on the land expropriation of the above land.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)

The judges of the Supreme Court shall be unable to sign due to business trip.