In case where public project operators fail to pay increased compensation within the prescribed period in the ruling by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on an objection, the validity of the ruling.

If the Central Land Expropriation Committee changes the amount of compensation for loss of the original adjudication and increases it, it is reasonable to deem that the person entitled to compensation is not paid compensation corresponding to the increased portion within one month from the date the original copy of the adjudication on cancellation or change of the original adjudication is served, or that if the person fails to deposit the increased portion of compensation under the conditions stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 61(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, the adjudication on objection is invalidated by analogical interpretation of the provisions of Article 65 of the same Act. Such a legal principle does not change even if the business person

Articles 61 and 65 of the Land Expropriation Act

Kim Jong-hwan et al.

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Seoul Metropolitan Government

The ruling of objection against the ruling of expropriation of land made by the defendant on September 26, 1986 with respect to the land listed in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiffs shall be revoked.

Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant assistant intervenor.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. As to an application for adjudication on expropriation of land listed in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiffs for the expropriation of land to be incorporated into the urban planning project by the defendant's assistant intervenor, who is a business operator on April 22, 1986, "the defendant's intervenor, who is the business operator, has accepted the land listed in the separate sheet for the above project, and the compensation for losses for the land listed in the same list as stated in the 195,169,500 won, shall be KRW 110,349,500 for the land listed in the 195,50,000 won for the land listed in the same list, and the time of expropriation shall be KRW 305,518,50 for the land listed in the 196, May 27, 1986; the defendant raised an objection against the plaintiff on September 26, 1986; the defendant did not dismiss the plaintiff's objection against the increase in compensation for losses as KRW 195,160,50,507.7

2.First of all, we examine the legitimacy of the ruling on expropriation of land No. 1 listed in the separate sheet among the land to be expropriated in this case.

(A) The provisions of Article 61(1) of the Land Expropriation Act provides that "public project operators shall pay compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal not later than the time of expropriation or use except for the cases of use under the provisions of Article 26 or 27, and Article 61(2) provides that "public project operators may deposit compensation until the time of expropriation or use in case they fall under any of the following subparagraphs."

Therefore, in full view of the above provisions, if public project operators did not pay the compensation determined by the competent Land Tribunal until the time of expropriation or use, or if public project operators did not deposit the compensation by the time of expropriation or use under Article 61 (2) 1, 2, and 4 of the Land Expropriation Act, or if public project operators did not deposit the compensation by the time of expropriation or use under Article 61 (2) 3 of the Land Expropriation Act until the time of expropriation or use under Article 61 (2) 3 of the same Act, the adjudication by the relevant Land Tribunal shall lose its effect under Article 65 of the same Act.

The purport of Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act on the invalidation of adjudication as seen above is to prevent property rights of land owners and their persons concerned, and other persons having rights to the land to be expropriated or used or things on such land from being unilaterally infringed by public authority without any justifiable compensation.

(B) Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 75 of the Land Expropriation Act, in a case where an objection is raised against the original adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, if it is deemed that the original adjudication is unlawful, all or part of the original adjudication may be cancelled, or the amount of compensation may be modified (Paragraph 1), and in a case where the compensation is increased due to cancellation or alteration of the original adjudication, public project operators shall pay the increased compensation to the person entitled to the compensation within one month from the date when the original adjudication was served with the original copy of the written adjudication on cancellation or alteration of the original adjudication (Paragraph 2). However, in a case where an objection is accepted by the Central Land Expropriation Committee and the increase of the compensation falls under any of subparagraphs of Article 61(2), the said increased compensation may be deposited (Paragraph 2). However, in a case where public project operators did not pay the increased compensation within the period as stipulated in Article 75 of the Land Expropriation Act or have not deposited the compensation even if there were any causes as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 6

However, according to the purport of the provision of Article 75 of the Land Expropriation Act, if the entire original adjudication is revoked in accordance with the application for objection by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, the original adjudication becomes invalid, and if only a part of the original adjudication is revoked, the original adjudication becomes invalid within the scope of the revocation. When the amount of compensation for loss is altered, the amount of compensation for loss in the original adjudication is effective only to the extent of the alteration, and if the compensation has been increased due to the cancellation or change of the original adjudication, the compensation for

Therefore, if public project operators only pay or deposit compensation as determined by the original decision of the Central Land Commission, and do not pay compensation equivalent to the increased portion within the prescribed period, or deposit it in the absence of the reasons as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 61(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, if the original decision is not invalidated, the public project operators may pay or deposit only part of compensation, and even receive and use it even though there are the same reasons as the invalidation in the case of the original decision, the purport of Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act is invalidated.

Therefore, if the Central Land Expropriation Committee increases the amount of compensation for loss of original adjudication by changing the amount of compensation for loss, it shall be reasonable to deem that the person entitled to compensation fails to pay the increased amount of compensation to the person entitled to compensation within one month from the date of receiving the original copy of the adjudication on cancellation or change of original adjudication, or that the adjudication on objection shall be invalidated by analogical interpretation of the provisions of Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act if the person fails to deposit it in spite of the reasons stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 61(2) of the Land Expropriation Act. This legal principle

(C) The fact that the plaintiff refused to receive the increased compensation in this case and filed the lawsuit in this case is obvious in accordance with the purport of the pleading. Thus, in this case, there are grounds falling under Article 61(2)1 of the Land Expropriation Act regarding expropriation of the first land listed in the attached list. The fact that the plaintiff was served on October 17, 1986 by the defendant on September 26, 1986 is already the same as the above. According to Eul evidence 2-2 without any dispute over the establishment, the defendant's intervenor, a business operator, added 1 month from October 17, 1986 to 1 month after adding 1 month to the delivery of the decision by the plaintiff on December 24, 1986, and only 35,596,000 won for the increased compensation for the expropriation of the land listed in the attached list, 2,07,079-109,509,509,506,0050).

Therefore, the Intervenor joining the Defendant, a business operator of the land expropriation of this case, did not pay or deposit increased compensation for the first land listed in the separate sheet within the period stipulated in Article 75(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, and thus, the part on the first land listed in the separate sheet among the instant decision on objection is null and void.

3. Next, the decision on the legitimacy of the adjudication on expropriation of the land No. 2 in the annexed sheet among the land to be expropriated in this case is examined.

According to Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the expropriation compensation amount for the land, the standard market price of which is publicly notified, shall be based on the standard land price, but it shall be determined by considering the utilization plan of the relevant national territory from the public notice date of the target area of the standard market price to the determination date of the compensation amount, the increase rate of wholesale price of neighboring land, the normal market price of neighboring similar land,

However, according to the statement in this case, according to Eul evidence Nos. 3-3 and 4 with no dispute over each formation, the defendant's ruling of objection of this case shall be based on the compensation price of the land No. 2 of this case. The defendant shall select the forest land No. 503, Gangnam-gu, Seoul as the standard land price, which shall be based on the calculation of the compensation price of the land No. 2 of this case. On August 21, 1978, based on the land price No. 31,500, the land price fluctuations rate shall be applied and the market price of the land No. 2 of this case shall be 108,540,000, in consideration of the land price of the land No. 2 of this case's topographical, geographical, geographical, location, etc.

However, in light of the whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence 3-7 to 10, Eul evidence 3-3-4, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 5-2's testimony of the date witness, the result of the party member's on-site inspection and the appraisal statement on the preparation of appraiser's report, which do not conflict with each other, the land No. 2 of this case is a natural green area and is designated as a park site on July 9, 197 as a forest in the forestry cadastral book, and is located within approximately 200 to 300 meters from the northwest side of the 400 meters in straight line between the two stations and the southwest, and traffic is located within the southwest side of the subway station, and the surrounding environment is convenient, and the remaining side of the land is completed, and the shape of the land in this case is the 2 of the land in this case, and the land category of the land in this case can be calculated as 1 to 6 meters from the south side of the land in this case and the surrounding land category No. 6 meters within the 6 meters in Seoul Metropolitan area.

According to the above facts, while the land No. 2 in this case is a natural green area and is designated as a park site, on the other hand, when the above 2 joint offices for land appraisal which the defendant used as the basis for calculating compensation, the forest land located in Gangnam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, which was selected as the reference land is land category only on the land cadastre, and was already incorporated in the district subject to the land consolidation and rearrangement project in the Ganpo-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, which was designated as the reference land for the assessment of the market price appraisal, and thus, the forest located in the above 503 forest located in the above 503 forest land is not similar to the land No. 2 in this case, because the criteria for the selection of reference land for land use or natural conditions are not similar to the land No.

Therefore, the part on the second land of this case among the ruling on objection of this case is erroneous in calculating compensation based on the price of the reference land which was mistakenly selected.

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the judgment of this case (the purport of seeking the cancellation as a declaration of invalidation with respect to the land No. 1 of this case) is reasonable, and it is accepted, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Kim Sung-il (Presiding Judge)