In case where the public project operator cannot, without his negligence, identify the inmate and the effect of the expropriation.

In a case where public project operators are unable to confirm the inmate without negligence, it is legitimate even if the right holder is determined as the inmate, and the effect of expropriation is that the owner of the object of expropriation has ceased to be who, and at the same time, the owner of the object of expropriation has acquired the right completely and definitely.

Article 23 of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da873 Delivered on June 22, 1971

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Tae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na801 delivered on June 22, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

Land expropriation under the Urban Planning Act and the Land Expropriation Act is lawful even if a business owner is unable to confirm the inmate without any negligence, and the effect of expropriation is lawful even if the owner of the object of expropriation is determined as the person, and at the same time the owner of the object of expropriation is extinguished, and at the same time the business owner is entitled to complete and reliable rights (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da873, Jun. 26, 1971). Accordingly, the court below did not bring a complaint against the acquisition of the ownership in this case by the defendant, even if the plaintiff won the land in this case against the non-party in the lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the non-party, even if the land in this case was decided to be owned by the plaintiff, the land in this case shall be deemed to have been lost the plaintiff's ownership by this case's land expropriation, and it shall be deemed to have been owned by the defendant, and there shall be no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the exercise of the right to request subrogation and incomplete deliberation, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the registration of the invalidity of the cause.

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.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)