(a) the meaning of reducing the claim amount in court;

(b) Whether consent to the withdrawal of a lawsuit and refusal of consent can be implicitly expressed;

(c) The case reversing the judgment of the court below ordering payment by adding up only the deficient portion without deducting the excessive portion of compensation in this ruling, on the ground that there is no consent to partial withdrawal and reduction of claims;

(a) to reduce a claim amount for action means the partial withdrawal of the action;

B. The defendant's rejection of the defendant's consent and consent with respect to the withdrawal of action is not necessarily necessarily required to be explicitly and explicitly, but it is not implicitly and explicitly.

(c) The case reversing the judgment of the court below ordering payment by adding up only the deficient portion without deducting the excessive portion of compensation in this ruling, on the ground that there is no consent to partial withdrawal and reduction of claims.

A.B. Article 239(2) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 46(2) and 75-2(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991)

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Meu450 delivered on August 23, 1983 (Gong1983, 1415) (Gong1983, 1415). Supreme Court Decision 92Nu531 delivered on September 8, 1992 (Gong192, 2898)

A clan of the Republic of Korea shall be a clan of the Republic of Korea

The Central Land Tribunal and one other (1) Defendants, Kim Jong- Law, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu6414 delivered on March 17, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The reduction of a claim amount in a lawsuit refers to the partial withdrawal of a lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu450 delivered on August 23, 1983) and Article 239(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the withdrawal of a lawsuit shall require the consent of the defendant if the defendant gives rise to the merits of the lawsuit. Thus, the defendant's consent and refusal of consent with respect to the withdrawal of a lawsuit is not necessarily required to be explicitly and implicitly.

According to the records, as of February 23, 191, the Central Land Expropriation Committee revoked the disposition of adjudication on the objection against the plaintiff as to the land No. 1 through 8 listed in the annexed Table 1 of the judgment below, and sought payment of 2,646,947,00 won and delay damages to the defendant Korea Highway Corporation. However, as a result of appraisal by the appraiser of the court below, the compensation amount for the land No. 1 through 5 was increased, but 6,7,8 were more reduced, the plaintiff's legal representative submitted to the court below on February 12, 1993 a written withdrawal of the lawsuit to withdraw the above 6,7,8 land and the claim for payment of compensation amount was delivered to the defendants' legal representative on the 15th day of the same month, and on the 16th day of the same month, the plaintiff's legal representative on the date of pleading No. 27,88, and on the 15th day of this month, the plaintiff's claim for the reduction of compensation amount by the plaintiff No. 265.

However, on its reasoning, the judgment of the court below judged that the above three parcels of land was excluded from the subject matter of lawsuit due to the plaintiff's withdrawal of lawsuit, and that the appraisal by ○○○ and △△ Joint Offices, which are the basis of the judgment of this case, cannot be deemed to have been lawfully assessed in accordance with the provisions of the law. Thus, the judgment of this case which set the average amount of compensation as the compensation amount, was unlawful. In the judgment on the increase and decrease of compensation amount, the compensation stipulated in the judgment of this case was evaluated below the appraised value of the appraiser of the court below, and thus, it rejected the defendant Korea Highway Corporation order the payment of the aggregate amount of the above part of the compensation to be claimed by the plaintiff, and the defense

However, in the records, the defendants' agent's consent to the withdrawal and reduction of the plaintiff's above part of the lawsuit cannot be found explicitly or implicitly. Rather, the defendants' agent's consent to the withdrawal and reduction of the above part of the lawsuit seems to be implicitly refused by asserting that since the compensation amount stipulated by the above ruling on the land of the three parcels of this case in the above preparatory document is more than 15,783,200 won or excessively higher than the reasonable compensation amount as a result of the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below, the difference between the fair compensation amount for the remaining land and the compensation amount for the objection should be deducted from the excessive amount of the above three parcels of land.

Therefore, the plaintiff's attorney's withdrawal and reduction of the above part of the lawsuit is effective as the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and the lawsuit against the above three parcels is still pending, but the court below did not deduct the excessive portion (15,783,200 won for the above three parcels which were excessively declared in the judgment of the court below) in the judgment of the lawsuit and ordered the payment of the above excessive portion (29,218,650 won for the remaining lands which were excessively declared in the judgment of the court below) without deducting the above three parcels (29,218,650 won for the above three parcels). This is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the withdrawal of the part of the lawsuit under Article 239 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act and the refusal of the defendant's consent thereto, or as to the subject matter of the lawsuit as to the increase or decrease of compensation under Article 75-2 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act or the subject matter of the lawsuit as to the increase

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)