Whether public project operators can become the other party to the declaration of the intention of reservation concerning the receipt of deposited land expropriation compensation.

The other party to the declaration of his/her intention of reservation concerning the receipt of deposited land expropriation compensation does not necessarily need to be limited to the deposited public officials, and the entrepreneur, who is a person liable to pay compensation, shall also become the other party.

Article 61 of the Land Expropriation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 197 (Gong1983, 113) and 92Nu3229 (Gong192, 3016) delivered on September 22, 1992

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

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

Busan High Court Decision 91Gu1561 delivered on January 15, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The expression of intent of reservation on the receipt of deposited land expropriation compensation does not necessarily need to be limited to the deposited public official, and it shall be limited to the public official who is the person liable to pay compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu197, Nov. 9, 1982). Thus, the original decision notified by the court of first instance that the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the amount of adjudication on April 17, 1990, before receiving the deposited land expropriation compensation and received it as a part of the compensation, and the notification reached the defendant on the following day. In the above purport, the decision of this case by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, which dismissed the plaintiff's objection on the ground that the plaintiff received it without the reservation, was unlawful. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence as pointed out. The allegation is without merit.

2. In determining the officially announced value of each of the joint offices of ○○ Certified Appraisers and △△ Certified Appraisers, which used as the basis for calculating the amount of compensation in the adjudication of expropriation of this case, the court below rejected the appraisal of the land subject to expropriation of this case and the reference for calculating the amount of compensation of this case on July 1, 1989, without using the officially announced value in January 1, 1990, which was announced as the basis for calculating the amount of compensation, based on the officially announced value in July 1, 1989, and based on the officially announced value in July 1, 1989, the basic date was not based on the officially announced value in July 1, 1989. In addition, the court below rejected the appraisal of the land subject to expropriation of this case and the reference land as the basis for calculating the amount of compensation of this case on the ground that the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)