[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that in case where only the part on obstacles among the land expropriation ruling and its objection ruling by the land expropriation committee becomes null and void, the expropriation ruling and its objection cannot be deemed null and void

[2] In the preparation of a land and goods protocol, whether a defect in which a public project operator fails to have a landowner attend the land and sign and seal thereon, or does not have a landowner sign and seal thereon, or where preparing a written statement of agreement, whether the defect in which the landowner did not affix his/her signature and seal is a ground for invalidation of a

[1] Article 45 of the former Land Expropriation Act (repealed by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects) (see Articles 61 and 64 of the current Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects), Article 61 (see Article 40 of the current Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects) Article 65 (see Article 42 of the current Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects) Article 23 of the former Land Expropriation Act (repealed by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects) (see Article 14 of the current Act on Acquisition of

[2] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu355 delivered on January 31, 1984 (Gong1984, 452), Supreme Court Decision 87Nu947 delivered on January 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 540), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2148 delivered on August 13, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2441)

Plaintiff

Central Land Tribunal and two others (Law Firm Duo, Attorneys Kim Jung-gi et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu730, 747 delivered on September 5, 2003

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the main claim

A. After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the defendant Gyeongbuk-do Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter "the defendant Land Expropriation Committee")'s expropriation ruling on each obstacles on the land adjacent to the land of this case (hereinafter "each obstacles of this case") in the annexed list No. 2 on the ground of the annexed list No. 2 on the land of this case was invalid because it did not pay or deposit compensation by the time of expropriation, and that the above expropriation ruling on each obstacles should also be null and void as well. However, the court below decided to the purport that the expropriation ruling on each obstacles of this case should be null and void by dividing the land of this case into the annexed list No. 2 (1) of the annexed list No. 2 of this case and the annexed list No. 2 (2) of the annexed list No. 1 of this case, and that the deposit ruling on each obstacles of this case was made separately as above, and that the expropriation ruling on each obstacles of this case cannot be seen as null and void by the former Land Expropriation Act No. 2601 of this case and the land expropriation. 2602 of this case.

In light of the records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the acceptance ruling and the partial invalidation of the objection judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. In preparing a land and goods protocol under Article 23 of the Land Expropriation Act, even if public project operators did not have landowners attend the land and sign and seal it, such reasons alone cannot be deemed null and void even if they did not make a request for consultation so that public project operators did not explain and understand their gender and truth, and in preparing a written statement of agreement, defects in failing to sign and seal the land owners do not constitute a procedural illegality, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a ground for appeal on this point. (See Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2148 delivered on August 13, 1993).

2. As to the conjunctive claim

After compiling the selected evidence, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that the appraisal corporation at the time of the ruling on the objection of this case did not affect the determination of illegality of the appraisal regardless of whether the land category of this case was changed unlawfully as alleged by the Plaintiff, since the land category in the public record is a river, but the land category in the public record is deemed to be an orchard, since the current status of the land is deemed to be a building site and an orchard.

In light of the records, we affirm that the deliberation of evidence, fact-finding, and judgment in the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)