In the event that increased compensation is not paid or deposited in a ruling on objection, whether the ruling on objection has become null and void (negative)

Since the procedure of raising an objection under the Land Expropriation Act is a separate procedure that differs from the expropriation ruling, which differs from the effect of final and conclusive judgment, the adjudication itself cannot be said to be null and void as a matter of course, even if the entrepreneur did not pay or deposit the increased compensation in the objection ruling within a specified period.

Articles 75(2) and 65 of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3963 delivered on June 13, 1989 (Gong1989,1083) 89Nu3526 delivered on November 14, 1989 (Gong190,57)

Plaintiff

Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu442 delivered on July 3, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. As to the main claim

Inasmuch as the procedure of raising an objection under the Land Expropriation Act is a separate procedure that differs from the adjudication of acceptance, which differs from the adjudication of acceptance, the said adjudication itself cannot be said to be null and void as a matter of course, even if the entrepreneur did not pay or deposit the increased compensation within a specified period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3963, Jun. 13, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3526, Nov. 14, 1989).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the adjudication of expropriation on November 27, 1984 and the plaintiff's primary claim on the premise that the adjudication of expropriation as of December 18, 1989 and the adjudication of objection as of December 18, 1989, based on the premise that the above adjudication of acceptance was invalidated, even though the increased amount of compensation increased in the adjudication of objection as of December 11, 1987 did not have been paid or deposited within the prescribed time limit. The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit, violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or lack of reasoning, and there is no ground for appeal.

2. As to the conjunctive claim

The Plaintiff did not assert any ground of appeal as to the part of the lower judgment regarding the conjunctive claim.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-man (Presiding Justice)