[1] The amount payable for the exercise of the repurchase right pursuant to Article 9 of the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation for Public Loss in the event of fluctuations in land prices

[2] The case holding that the exercise of the redemptive right is recognized by specifying the original purchase part of the land after the purchase by consultation under the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation of Losses and the combination of land with another land

[1] Under Article 9 of the Special Act on Special Cases Concerning the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses, the repurchase under Article 9 of the Special Act on Special Cases Concerning the Compensation for Land, etc., is sufficient by paying in advance the amount equivalent to the amount of the compensation that the repurchase right holder received if the requirements for the repurchase occur within the repurchase period, and by unilateral declaration of intention of repurchase, regardless of the intention of the project operator. Even if the price of land, etc. is significantly changed compared to the time of acquisition, an agreement between the parties to the amount has been reached under Article 9(3) of the Special Act on Special Cases concerning the Compensation for Land, etc., or the amount is not determined by

[2] The case holding that the exercise of the repurchase right is recognized by specifying the original purchase part of the land after the purchase was made through consultation under the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation for Losses, and the land was integrated into another land

[1] Article 9 of the Public Loss Compensation Act / [2] Article 9 of the Public Loss Compensation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da7832 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2257) Supreme Court Decision 93Da2241 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2610), Supreme Court Decision 94Da27113 delivered on February 3, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1150)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Special Metropolitan City (Attorney Gyeong-Gyeong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 92Na12193 delivered on February 4, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The repurchase under Article 9 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Compensation for Public Loss (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Special Cases Concerning the Compensation for Loss of Losses") shall be met by paying in advance the amount equivalent to the compensation received by the repurchase right holder when the requirements for repurchase occur within the repurchase period, and making unilateral declaration of intention of repurchase, regardless of the project operator’s intent. Even when the price of land, etc. is significantly changed compared with that at the time of acquisition, an agreement between the parties on the amount under Article 9(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Compensation for Loss of Land, etc. is concluded, or unless the amount is determined by a final and conclusive judgment of the Land Tribunal, the amount equivalent to the compensation received in order to exercise the repurchase right shall be determined by paying in advance the amount equivalent to the compensation received by the repurchase right holder (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da7

In this view, the court below is justified in rejecting the defendant's defense that the lawsuit of this case filed without consultation between the parties on the redemption price or the adjudication procedure by the Land Tribunal is unlawful, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the exercise of the right of repurchase and the requirements for establishment under the Act on Special Cases.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the following facts: (a) as part of the above 611m2 of the land of this case, such as the plaintiff, was assigned to the Busan Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted); and (b) the defendant acquired the above land by means of consultation under the same Act and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant on March 17, 198; and (c) later, the defendant did not use the land of this case for the purpose of constructing the above 35,262m2 after combining the land of this case with the land of this case, including the above 3m3m2, which was acquired by the defendant on the land of this case on the ground that there was no need to purchase the above 4m2 of the land of this case on the land of this case on the ground that there was no need to purchase the land of this case on the land of this case; and (d) as to the land of this case, the above 1m273m2 of the land of this case, which was not constructed.

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the requirements for the right of repurchase under the Act on Special Cases or by misapprehending the purpose of acquiring the land of this case or the requirements for the right of repurchase under the Act on Special Cases.

In addition, since the grounds for redemption under Article 9 (1) of the Act on Special Cases are different from the grounds for redemption under Article 9 (2) of the same Act, whether it satisfies the requirements for redemption under paragraph (2) of the same Article does not affect the gender of redemption under paragraph (1) (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da22494 delivered on January 14, 1994), it is not acceptable to the purport that the plaintiff et al. did not use the land of this case since it does not constitute a case where the defendant did not use the land of this case more than five years after the date of acquisition of the land of this case, under the premise that it satisfies the requirements for redemption under paragraph (1) of the same Article.

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)