In case where the urban planning project operator fails to notify the consultation period under Article 15-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act within a considerable period after the announcement of project approval, whether the landowner may request a request for adjudication under Article 25-3 (1) of the same Act.

The reason why the Land Expropriation Act grants a claim for adjudication to a landowner, etc. in the event that no agreement is reached, the implementer may apply for adjudication at any time within one year after the public announcement of the project approval (in the case of an urban planning project, within the implementation period of the project), while no landowner has the right to file an application for adjudication. Therefore, it is interpreted that the purpose of the additional dues system under Article 25-3(3) of the Land Expropriation Act is to protect the interests of the landowner, etc. who is prompt confirmation of legal relations surrounding the expropriation and to ensure fairness among the landowners, and the purpose of the additional dues system under Article 25-3(3) of the same Act is to ensure the invalidation of the above claim. In light of the fact that the urban planning project operator fails to notify the landowner of the consultation period after the public announcement of the approval of the project

Article 25-3 of the former Land Expropriation Act, Articles 15-2 and 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act

Plaintiff et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and two others

The Central Land Tribunal and one other, the Defendants Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu734 delivered on February 26, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reasoned that (1) Defendant 2 did not make an agreement with the Plaintiff on July 10, 1987, which was determined and announced as the urban planning facility project implementation plan on August 9, 1989 pursuant to Article 25 of the Urban Planning Act; (3) Defendant 2 did not make an application for adjudication on the land of this case to acquire the land of this case, which is owned by the Plaintiff and the deceased Non-Party (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”); (4) Defendant 2 did not make an application for adjudication on the land of this case for adjudication on the following reasons; and (4) Defendant 2 did not make an application for adjudication on the land of this case for adjudication on the land of this case after consultation with the Non-Party 1; and (5) Plaintiff 2 did not make an application for adjudication on the land of this case for adjudication on the land of this case at the time of 0-dong and 123 days after consultation; and (4) Defendant 2 had no longer made an application for adjudication on the land of this case.

On the other hand, in case where the Land Expropriation Act grants a claim for adjudication to the landowner, etc., the reason why the consultation is not reached, the executor may apply for adjudication at any time within one year after the public announcement of the project approval (in case of an urban planning project, within the implementation period of the project), while the landowner does not have the right to apply for adjudication, it is interpreted to protect the interests of the landowner, etc., who is to make prompt confirmation of legal relations surrounding the expropriation, and to ensure fairness between the acceptance parties. The purport of the above additional dues system is to ensure the invalidation of the above claim. If the facts are recognized by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff et al. can claim for adjudication pursuant to Article 25-2 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act. Accordingly, if the executor of the urban planning project fails to notify the consultation period under Article 15-2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act, the period shall be within the period of application for adjudication under Article 25 of the Land Expropriation Act, and it shall not be accepted by the consultation date.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Since the court below's rejection of the defendants' assertion that the claim for adjudication of this case was withdrawn, there is no illegality such as the theory of the lawsuit, all the arguments are without merit (Article 16-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act only contains the contents that "the plaintiff's evidence Nos. 5-4 cited in the lawsuit merely demands the previous application for adjudication of acceptance", and even if the claim for adjudication of acceptance was made several times in the case of family affairs, the defendant Andong-si, which is the implementer of the urban planning project of this case, has a duty to file an application for adjudication within two months from the date of the first application for adjudication (see Article

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)