A. Whether the adjudication of expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal can be subject to administrative litigation (negative)

(b) Effect of the receipt of the deposit money for land expropriation compensation without reservation of objection;

A. Comprehensively taking into account the provisions of Articles 73 through 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, an administrative litigation against land expropriation may be filed at the time of an objection to the adjudication filed by the Central Land Expropriation Committee. Therefore, the adjudication on land expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, which is not the adjudication on an objection filed by the said Committee, may not be subject to administrative litigation.

B. In a case where the urban planning project operator (project operator under the Land Expropriation Act) deposited the land expropriation compensation adjudicated by the land expropriation committee under Article 61(2)1 of the Land Expropriation Act, such deposit is for the performance of the obligation to pay compensation for the land expropriation to the land owner, and there is no difference between the deposit for repayment and its nature under the Civil Act. Thus, if the land owner received the deposit without any reservation of any objection, the land owner shall be deemed to have received the deposit in accordance with the purport of the deposit by taking over the adjudication of the land expropriation committee.

(a)Articles 75-2 and 29 of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 61(2)1 of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 30(1) of the Urban Planning Act; Article 487 of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu420 delivered on February 8, 1983: 82Nu197 delivered on November 9, 1982; 81Nu311 delivered on March 22, 1983

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu372 delivered on July 14, 1981

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined as to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit ex officio before viewing the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 30 (1) of the Urban Planning Act, in case where an executor of a urban planning project expropriates land, the Land Expropriation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis, and in case where considering the provisions of Articles 73 through 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act comprehensively, in an administrative litigation on land expropriation, an appeal may be filed when there is an objection against the adjudication on the objection filed by the Central Land Expropriation Committee. Therefore, in an administrative litigation on the land expropriation, the adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on November 1, 1979, which is not an adjudication on the objection filed by the Central Land Expropriation Committee (the adjudication on April 21, 1980) shall not be considered an object of administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu420, Feb. 8, 1983). However, the lower court considered the Plaintiffs’ request for confirmation of invalidity of the Defendant’s expropriation on November 1, 1979, which was lawful, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the subject

In addition, in a case where an operator of an urban planning project (project owner under the Land Expropriation Act) deposits land expropriation compensation adjudicated by the Land Expropriation Committee pursuant to Article 61 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act, such deposit is for the performance of the obligation to pay compensation for land expropriation to the land owner, and there is no different nature from the deposit for repayment under the Civil Act. Therefore, if the land owner receives the deposit without any reservation of any objection, the land owner shall be deemed to have received the deposit in accordance with the purport of the deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu197, Nov. 9, 1982; 81Nu311, Mar. 22, 1983).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held on November 1, 1979 that the defendant expropriates the land of this case, etc. owned by the plaintiffs as the implementer of the urban planning project (land expropriation time December 10, 1979), and decided that the compensation amount should be KRW 3,560,000 for the plaintiff 1, and KRW 6,880 for the plaintiff 2. The plaintiffs refused to receive the above compensation amount and filed an objection against the above expropriation ruling on December 10 of the same year, and the Busan City Mayor did not accept the above compensation amount under the above ruling on December 10 of 1979 (or KRW 5,762,00 which was already received from the above compensation amount less KRW 1,18,00 for the plaintiff 2) and did not receive the above compensation amount under the premise that the above plaintiffs did not receive the above compensation amount under the premise that the above plaintiffs' consent to the Busan City Mayor's withdrawal of the compensation amount without the consent of the above plaintiff 1's withdrawal of the above compensation amount.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the party members are self-reader.

As seen above, the plaintiffs' primary claim of this case is unlawful as it is the subject of the administrative litigation. In addition, if the facts established by the court below and the records (Article 307 of the record of the 7th argument in the original trial), the plaintiffs received all the compensation and increased compensation in accordance with the adjudication on acceptance of each case deposited by the defendant on May 3, 1980 and June 15, 1981 without objection. Thus, the plaintiffs' primary claim of this case also has no interest in litigation for the reasons as seen above.

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit is assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)