2012Nu17720 Revocation of the order to pay expenses by proxy

South Korea

Korea Land and Housing Corporation

OOOO 000

Representative ○○○○

Law Firm ○○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap15917 Decided May 10, 2012

October 18, 2012

December 6, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's office of KRW 81,356,00 on December 6, 201 against the plaintiff shall be dismissed.

The order to pay expenses shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “At the time of acquisition through consultation and consultation on January 1, 2009, B shall be added” on January 29, 2009; “B shall be placed on the 29th of the same month; “B shall be placed on the 29th of the same month” on the 29th of the same month; “B shall be placed on the 29th of the same month” on the 17th of the 6th judgment;

Article 43 of the Act on the Public Works, however, provides that "the owner of land or a person who is not a landowner or person concerned, or a person who has a right to the land to be expropriated or used or any goods on such land shall transfer such land or goods to the project operator by the commencement date of expropriation or use," and Article 75 (1) of the Act on the Public Works Projects provides that "the cost of relocation of a building, standing trees, a structure, or any other goods on such land (hereinafter referred to as "building, etc.") shall be the cost of relocation (hereinafter referred to as "transfer cost"): Provided, That in any of the following cases, the compensation shall be made at the price of the relevant goods; "the cost of relocation of a building, etc. cannot be used for the original purpose due to such relocation;" "the cost of relocation of a building, etc. under subparagraph 2 exceeds the price of the relevant goods;" "the cost of expropriation of a building, etc. under subparagraph 3, Article 75 (1) of the Act on the Public Works Projects," and "the project operator shall have jurisdiction over the land expropriation committee."

In full view of the above provisions, the "transfer" under Article 43 of the Public Works Act is not the transfer of the relevant land or goods to the project implementer, but the obstacles themselves are not the transfer to the third place.

In addition, in the case where there was a ruling to expropriate expenses for the transfer of obstacles, since the project implementer does not acquire the ownership of the obstacles, the owner of obstacles bears the duty to transfer the obstacles to the third place not later than the commencement date of expropriation. Such obstacles shall be deemed to be subject to vicarious execution under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, because they correspond to the so-called alternative duty that can be done by others on behalf of others, and they shall be subject to the duty of transfer of obstacles. Further, the 6th "B" shall be deemed to be as follows: "In this case, it shall be deemed as follows, i.e., the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by considering the overall purport of pleadings and arguments," the 7th and 9th "I cannot transfer the land or things as follows," and the 7th and 9th are "I shall not have the duty to transfer the land or buildings to the project implementer, and thus, it shall not interfere with the transfer of each of the land without any direct interference with the transfer of the land, and thus, it shall not interfere with the transfer of each of each of the land.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that among the obstacles of this case, fixed-type containers, equipment such as containers, ice containers, etc., and civil engineering construction facilities cannot be transferred to the defendant and they should be delivered to the defendant, so they cannot be subject to administrative vicarious execution. However, according to the above facts and evidences, the adjudication of expropriation of this case only set compensation for the transfer of each obstacles of this case and set it for the purpose of direct use for public services, and as such, it cannot be deemed that the above goods alleged by the plaintiff should not be delivered to the defendant who is the project operator. Since each obstacles of this case are containers used as offices for collection and sale of scrap metal, their interior collection and sale, cut-offs, scrap metal, scrap metal, empty cans, waste, etc., the plaintiff's above assertion under different premise is without merit, and it is stated in the main sentence of Article 8 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance and Article 80 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the corresponding parts added to this judgment.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is so decided as per Disposition and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-ho

Judges Park Jong-tae

Judges Kim Jae-han