(a) In cases of necessary co-litigation pursuant to Article 75-2 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, a case where only the defendant who did not file an appeal is called "the defendant" and the costs of appeal are borne only by the defendant who filed an appeal;

B. Whether an appeal is a ground for appeal in a case where there is an obvious error in calculation among the grounds for judgment (negative)

A. In a necessary co-litigation pursuant to Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, a case where only the Defendant, who did not file an appeal, is indicated as “Defendant” and the costs of appeal are borne only by the Defendant who filed an appeal.

B. Of the reasoning of the lower judgment, the fact that the amount of compensation for the expropriation ruling, which is not the amount of compensation when an objection is raised, is an obvious error in the calculation, would be corrected through the adjudication and correction procedure, and is not a dispute in the final

A. Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 197(1) and Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 74Da1448 delivered on November 11, 1975 (Gong1975, 8722) 89Meu14639 delivered on July 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1784) 91Nu12585 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong192, 2433)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Suwon-si Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu11355 delivered on October 14, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against Defendant Suwon.

As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Suwon-si, Counsel for the defendant

The measure of calculating the amount of compensation for the instant land according to the appraisal result adopted by the court below is justifiable. The above defendant's assertion on this point is not an interest to him. There is no error of incomplete deliberation in the judgment below.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the amount to be paid to the plaintiffs shall be the remainder after deducting the compensation amount at the time of the decision by the person who raised an objection against the plaintiffs from the fair compensation amount of the judgment below. However, in calculating the amount as pointed out by the above defendant, it is clear that the above defendant committed a mistake that deducts the compensation amount at the time of the decision of expropriation, not the compensation amount at the time of the decision. However, such mistake is an obvious error in calculation, which will be corrected through the procedure of the correction of the judgment, and it is not a

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)