The effect of adjudication of expropriation without the participation of landowners or persons concerned in consultation on the expropriation of land.

The consultation under Article 25 of the Land Expropriation Act is sufficient to consult on expropriation under the provisions of Article 15-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act between public project operators, owners of land and persons concerned, and it is not necessary to take special procedures, and it is not necessary to take other procedures, and even if there is an error of law by making a consultation on expropriation without the participation of landowners or persons concerned due to the negligence of public project operators, the decision disposition cannot be said to be null and void just for such reason.

Article 25 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 15-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Jong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Cho Young-young, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu635 delivered on May 4, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The grounds of appeal are examined in sequence.

1. Ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the evidence of the court below in light of the records, on August 15, 1979, the non-party and eight other persons except the non-party ( Address 1 omitted) shall apply for the implementation of the construction of the urban planning project to the head of Young-gun Gun on August 15, 1979, and the head of Young-gu Gun shall apply for the above approval to the Governor of Gangwon-do delegated with the authority of the Minister of Construction and Transportation on May 6, 198, and the Governor of Gangwon-do shall approve the implementation of the urban planning project on June 8 of the same year, the above non-party and eight other persons shall be permitted to implement the urban planning project on June 30 through 7.16 of the same year, and it is recognized that such procedure is just in the notification of the court below's decision to the effect that the non-party and the non-party's land under Article 30 (2) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 24 (1) and (2) of the Urban Planning Act, and Article 25-2 of the Urban Planning Act shall not be stated in the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No.

2. Ground of appeal No. 2

Article 25 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that public project operators shall consult with owners of land and persons concerned in order to acquire or extinguish the right to the land in question as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree thereof. Thus, there is a consultation on expropriation under Article 15 Section 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act between public project operators, owners of land and persons concerned, so no special procedure shall be taken, and even if the procedure for expropriation is found to be unlawful due to the negligence of the owners of land or persons concerned, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of expropriation is null and void a year. Accordingly, according to the legal determination of the court below, the above non-party public project operators, etc. were lawfully established at the conference room of the Young-gu Office on August 29, 1980 after holding a meeting with the owners of land, etc. other than the plaintiff et al., but the above public project operators and the public project operators of Young-Gun did not reach a legitimate consultation on the purchase price, so that they could not have reached an agreement on the purchase price between the plaintiffs and the owners of land within 10.

3. Ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the results of the review, ruled that when the Gangwon-do local Land Tribunal makes a ruling on expropriation of the land and buildings of this case, it shall make a request for price appraisal to the Korea-do Joint Appraisal Joint Office, the new appraisal Joint Office, and the advanced appraisal Joint Office, and shall make a ruling on the compensation price by applying the amount to the compensation price calculated by calculating the average value of the appraisal price he/she has made. The defendant Central Land Tribunal shall request each of the joint office and the new appraisal Joint Office, which is a certified appraisal organization, to change the price recorded in the attached list Nos. 1 and 2 at the same time as the average value of the appraised value at the time of May 23, 1981, and the remainder shall be decided by changing the appraisal price of the attached list No. 1 and 2 to the same price, and there is no evidence to determine that the ruling price of this case by the defendant is an adequate price and that it is not an adequate price. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justifiable, and there is no ground for conviction of facts belonging to the judgment on the facts.

4. Ultimately, the appeal shall be dismissed without merit. The costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing plaintiff, etc. and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)