Whether the acquisition of a right under the Land Expropriation Act may be deemed to be the acquisition of a right in a case where an agreement for the acquisition of a right to land has been reached between a business operator and a landowner but no confirmation has been obtained by the competent Land Tribunal

Even if an agreement is reached between the landowner and the land owner for the acquisition of rights after the approval of the project, if no confirmation is made by the competent Land Tribunal on the completion of the agreement, it cannot be deemed as an acquisition of rights under the Land Expropriation Act.

Articles 25 and 25-2 of the Land Expropriation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1528 decided Nov. 14, 1978 (Gong1979, 11609)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Korea Electric Power Corporation Attorney Go-won, Counsel for defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 91Na3068 delivered on April 30, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to Articles 25(1) and 25(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, public project operators shall consult with landowners and persons concerned in order to acquire rights to the land after the announcement of approval of the project under Article 16 of the Land Expropriation Act, and if the consultation is concluded, they may apply for confirmation of the formation of the consultation with the competent Land Expropriation Committee within the period of application for adjudication of expropriation with the consent of the owners of the land and persons concerned under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and if the competent Land Expropriation Committee obtains confirmation, it shall be considered as adjudication under the Land Expropriation Act.

Therefore, even if a public project operator obtained a project approval and an agreement for the acquisition of rights to a landowner and land was not reached, such agreement cannot be deemed as acquisition of rights under the Land Expropriation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da1528, Nov. 14, 1978). Thus, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the contract to establish a superficies on the land of this case between the non-party who is the registered titleholder of the land of this case at the time of obtaining a project approval under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Electric Source Development is an acquisition of rights under the procedure stipulated in the Land Expropriation Act, on the ground that there is no evidence that it is an acquisition of rights under the said Act, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit,.

(2) The argument is related to the lower court’s assumptive judgment, assuming that the creation of superficies in this case is based on the adjudication under the Land Expropriation Act, and the Defendant’s acquisition of superficies in this case is not based on the Land Expropriation Act, and thus, the grounds for appeal on this part are omitted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)