(a) Method of exercising the redemptive right under Article 9 of the Public Compensation of Losses and Losses Act;

(b) An amount payable for exercise of a redemptive right where the price of land, etc. is substantially changed compared with at the time of acquisition;

A. Under Article 9 of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Loss, the repurchase is established regardless of the intent of the concessionaire by unilaterally paying to the concessionaire the amount equivalent to the compensation that the repurchase right holder received when the requirements for repurchase occur during the period of repurchase.

B. Even if the price of land, etc. is significantly changed compared to the time of acquisition, consultation between the parties regarding the amount under Article 9(3) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, or unless the amount is determined by the adjudication of the Land Tribunal, the amount equivalent to the compensation received in advance to exercise the right of repurchase without making any question is sufficient.

Article 9 of the Public Compensation for Loss

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da7832 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2257) (Gong1993, 217), 92Da6501 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong1993, 217). Supreme Court Decision 86Da324,86Meu1579 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1987, 788)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na57945 delivered on April 9, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney

The judgment of the court below as to the point that theory points out (the part indicated in the drawing(c)(f) attached to the drawing(s) as attached to the judgment of the court below among the land in this case is justified in light of the evidence relation as stated by the court below and Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the judgment of the court below as to the point that 119 square meters is 19 square meters of land as attached to the drawing(s) is rejected. The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the evidence relation as stated by the court below, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of violation of the rules of evidence or an error of law

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below held that the redemption under Article 9 of the Public Compensation for Public Loss Act is established regardless of the project operator's intent by unilaterally paying to the project operator the amount equivalent to the compensation that the repurchase right holder received when the requirements for repurchase occur during the period of repurchase, and even if the price of land, etc. is significantly changed compared to the time of acquisition, the amount equivalent to the compensation that the parties have received to exercise the repurchase right is not determined under Article 9 (3) of the same Act, unless the agreement is reached between the parties, or the amount is determined by the adjudication of the Land Tribunal under Article 9 (3) of the same Act, and it is sufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da7832 delivered on June 23, 192). Thus, the plaintiff, who is the repurchase right holder, has no reason to believe that there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the above law.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)