Whether a person, who purchased land and completed the price before the land expropriation ruling, may file an objection against the adjudication on expropriation as a related person (affirmative)

A person who purchased the land prior to the commencement of the procedure for adjudication on expropriation of the land and paid the price thereof in full, and acquired the right to use the land upon delivery, but only the registration of ownership transfer was not completed, shall be interpreted as a related person under Article 4(3) of the Land Expropriation Act in light of the fact that the land expropriation results in the result that the ownership cannot be acquired due to the land expropriation. Therefore, an objection may be raised against

Articles 4(3) and 73 of the Land Expropriation Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu413 delivered on March 10, 1981

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant and the defendant assistant intervenor.

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant are examined.

According to Article 4 (3) of the Land Expropriation Act, the term "person concerned" means a person who has rights other than superficies, easements, lease on a deposit basis, mortgage, loan for use, lease, or other rights to the land to be expropriated or used. According to the facts duly established by the court below, prior to commencement of the expropriation procedure for the land in this case, the plaintiffs shall establish permanent, permanent, and private market under the Market Act from Gwangju City which is the owner of the land in this case before the commencement of the expropriation procedure, and shall receive the registration of ownership transfer after the establishment of the market. However, under the condition that the land can be used at the same time as the conclusion of the sale contract, the purchase of the land in this case was made on the condition that the land in this case would be allowed to be used at the same time, but it was not completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the purchase of the land in this case before the commencement of the expropriation procedure. Thus, even if the person who acquired the right to use the land in this case but did not complete the registration of ownership transfer, it can be interpreted as the land expropriation person concerned.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that dismissed the plaintiffs' objection under Article 73 of the Land Expropriation Act on the ground that the plaintiffs' objection cannot be a legitimate objection under Article 73 of the Land Expropriation Act was unlawful, and thus revoked the decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the Land Expropriation Act, or by inconsistency with the reasoning, and the party members' decision cited in the theory (Supreme Court Decision 72Da2401, 2402 delivered on February 26, 1973) shall not be appropriate in this case. The arguments are groundless.

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.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)