The legal nature of acquisition of ownership by a public project operator where the consultation under Article 25 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act has been concluded and the registration of ownership transfer has been made in the future of the project operator, but such consultation has not been confirmed by the Land Tribunal under Article 25-2

Even if an agreement has been reached at the consultation stage pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act and the registration of ownership transfer has been made on the grounds of such agreement, such agreement shall not be deemed an original acquisition of the land, unlike the case of expropriation by the Land Tribunal pursuant to Article 25-2 (1) of the same Act, and the original owner shall not be deemed an original acquisition of the land, and it shall be deemed that the original owner has succeeded to the acquisition of the land. Since the decision of expropriation has an effect on the successor to the land thereafter, the decision of expropriation shall have no effect on the subsequent successor, and even if there is a person who has succeeded to the ownership through an agreement of expropriation without going through the confirmation process by the Land Tribunal for other development projects, the decision of expropriation shall

Articles 25 (1) and 25-2 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act

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

[Judgment of the court below]

The Central Land Tribunal et al. and one defendants' attorney-at-law

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu29783 delivered on January 19, 1994

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

(1) We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5.

The facts of this case duly acknowledged by the court below are as follows: on June 24, 191, the period of expropriation was 93,840,000 won on July 31, 1991 for the construction project by the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City with respect to the land listed in the judgment 3, which was executed by the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City; on July 27, 1991, the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City deposited the above amount on July 27, 1991; on the ground that the above land belongs to the housing site development project district by the defendant Special Metropolitan City on behalf of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation has already made a decision on the expropriation of the above land as the site for the Dongbu Highway; on July 26, 191, the procedure for expropriation was conducted, and the consultation was concluded between the plaintiff and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Corporation on behalf of the defendant at the consultation stage pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Land Expropriation Committee on July 25, 1997.

Article 25 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act provides that an agreement between a project operator and a landowner has been reached at the consultation stage under Article 25 (1) of the same Act and the registration of transfer of ownership has been made on the ground of such agreement, unless it is confirmed by the Land Tribunal under Article 25-2 (1) of the same Act, such agreement shall not be deemed an original acquisition of the land, unlike the case of expropriation by a ruling, and it shall not be deemed that the original owner has succeeded to the acquisition by the original owner (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da1528 delivered on November 14, 1978). Thus, the decision of expropriation shall also take effect on the subsequent successor to the land (Article 6 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act), so even if there is a person who succeeds to the ownership by consultation on expropriation without confirmation by the Land Tribunal for other development projects and by transfer of ownership based thereon, the decision of expropriation shall not be affected, and this shall not be the same as long as such consultation is null and void even if a project operator of the consultation on expropriation is the same person and the same person.

Therefore, in this case where a business entity of the acceptance and ruling (agency) who is the preceding disposition has agreed on the acceptance for a different development project with regard to the same land between the existence of the preceding disposition and another development project, the acceptance and consultation and ownership transfer registration based thereon were made after the acceptance and the subsequent registration were made shall not be deemed null and void or there is any defect corresponding to the grounds for revocation.

In addition, there is no difference in the conclusion whether the transfer registration by the consultation for expropriation was made before the expropriation period specified in the prior expropriation ruling, or it was made later.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the above acceptance agreement was unlawful due to the above acceptance agreement, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

(2) We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 4.

As pointed out in the theory of the lawsuit, the acceptance ruling or objection disposition in this case cannot be deemed an illegal disposition contrary to the good faith principle. Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is without merit.

(3) All of the Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below recognized the fact that the land described in the judgment of the court below 1 and 2 was originally a factory site used as cement brick and block factory site, etc., but it recognized the fact that the current state of the construction work commenced in advance before the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City rendered a ruling of expropriation of the building project for the East-Secul Road, which is the development project of this case, became a road or a road slope, and determined an objection based on the appraised value in terms of the current status of the river or the removal method, and calculated the amount of compensation by deeming the site as the site site. In light of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out

(4) Accordingly, all appeals by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)