In a case where an objection is not reserved when receiving increased compensation for losses in the ruling on objection, whether it shall be deemed that the result of the ruling on objection was accepted (affirmative)

Even if a landowner expressed his/her intention of reservation at the time of receiving compensation for losses as prescribed by the adjudication of expropriation, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be deemed that he/she received the increased compensation for losses in the adjudication of acceptance, unless there are special circumstances.

Articles 51 and 61(1) of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7203 Decided June 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 193) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7081 Decided August 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 2446) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu13342 Decided October 13, 1992 (Gong192, 3154), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18573 Decided September 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2806), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20627 Decided September 15, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3414)

[Judgment of the court below]

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 96Gu5414 delivered on April 10, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even if a landowner expressed his/her intent to keep an objection at the time of receiving compensation for losses as prescribed by the adjudication of expropriation, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be deemed that he/she received the objection in return for the result of the adjudication, unless he/she states his/her intention to keep an objection while receiving the increased compensation for losses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20627, Sept. 15, 1995).

In the same purport, the court below recognized the facts as stated in its holding, and held that the plaintiff received the increased compensation for losses from the ruling on the objection as a result of the ruling on the compensation for losses is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the interpretation of the disposition document, the contradiction of reasons, and the violation of the rules of evidence. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)