In cases where it is evident that a business operator may refuse to receive the compensation for expropriation, whether he/she may deposit the compensation immediately without providing it (affirmative)

Article 61(2)1 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that when a person entitled to compensation refuses to receive it, public project operators may deposit the compensation by the time of expropriation. Thus, in cases where it is deemed evident that the person entitled to the compensation refuses to receive it, public project operators may immediately deposit the compensation without actually providing it.

Article 61 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2851 Decided September 8, 1981 (Gong1981, 14322) Supreme Court Decision 93Da4276 Decided August 26, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2513) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9085 Decided June 13, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2407)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney Yang Jong-dae, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na18720 delivered on May 13, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below has duly confirmed the fact that the Army Chief of Staff, a business owner, has gone through the consultation procedures with the plaintiff in order to acquire the right to the land of this case after public notice of recognition of the national defense and military installations project for the land of this case was given. Thus, the court below did not go through the consultation procedures provided by the Land Expropriation Act on the ground that the consultation procedures did not go through the consultation procedures provided by the Land Expropriation Act, or the acquisition of the company's ownership cannot be deemed to be illegal due to this reason.

2. Article 61(2)1 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that when a recipient of compensation refuses to receive it, public project operators may deposit the compensation by the time of expropriation. Thus, in cases where it is evident that the recipient of compensation refuses to receive it, public project operators may deposit the compensation without actually providing the compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9085 delivered on June 13, 1995).

The court below held that the measure of depositing the compensation against the plaintiff is lawful, since it is clear that the plaintiff refused to receive the compensation even if the plaintiff received the written adjudication on the land expropriation and the written notification on the receipt of deposit money, considering these circumstances, since the plaintiff's request for consultation is too low in the amount of compensation presented by the public project operator, and the plaintiff asserts that the amount of compensation presented by the public project operator should be paid in 4 times as much as the amount of compensation presented by the public project operator, or demanded a change in the land with other land, and thus he did not attend a meeting to hold consultation and refused to enter into a sales contract. The compensation adjudicated by the Central Land Expropriation Committee is limited to the same amount as the compensation presented by the public project operator. In light of these circumstances, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff raised an objection immediately after receiving the written adjudication on the land expropriation and the written notification on the receipt of deposit money. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the fact finding and the judgment of the court below are just and there is no violation of law

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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 on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)