The judgment below

Among the claims for purchase of remaining land and for compensation for loss due to price decrease, this part is reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the claim for purchase of remaining land and the claim for compensation for loss due to price decrease

A. In full view of the contents and legislative purport of the provisions of Articles 73, 74, and 34, 50, 61, and 83 through 85 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), in order for a landowner to receive compensation from a project operator due to a decrease in the price of remaining land under Article 73 of the Land Compensation Act, or to exercise the project operator’s right to demand purchase of remaining land under Article 74 of the Land Compensation Act, it is only possible to obtain remedy for infringement of rights under Articles 83 through 85 of the Land Compensation Act only when the landowner is dissatisfied with the adjudication after going through the adjudication procedure stipulated in Articles 34 and 50 of the Land Compensation Act.

It is not allowed to immediately claim compensation for losses against a project operator without going through such adjudication procedures, and the same applies to the case where the land to be expropriated was subject to adjudication procedures.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du24092, Sept. 25, 2014). Therefore, a landowner should, in principle, undergo adjudication prior to filing a lawsuit claiming compensation for losses due to a decrease in the price of the remaining land or a lawsuit claiming the purchase of the remaining land.

However, the purport that such a decision should be made is to efficiently operate the procedure by requiring an administrative agency to make a professional judgment as to whether the compensation for losses incurred due to the implementation of public works and the scope of losses. Therefore, even if a judgment was not made at the time of filing a lawsuit, if the judgment was made by the time of closing argument in the fact-finding trial, the defect can be deemed to be cured

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du9832, Feb. 15, 2008). Whether such a procedure had been followed as a litigation requirement for a claim for compensation of losses is ex officio investigation.