(a) The validity of the decision to authorize a correction of the deposit certificate by the deposit official;

(b) The effects of adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, which has filed a report by effective adjudication of the invalidated local Land Expropriation Committee;

C. Whether there is a legal interest in filing a claim for revocation of adjudication or nullification by the Central Land Expropriation Committee

A. In the case of a deposit for repayment, if the obligor deposits on such terms, notwithstanding the absence of an obligation of the obligee to make any counter-performance or any other terms and conditions, unless the obligee accepts it, the deposit for repayment shall not be effective, and even if there was a decision to authorize the above request for correction from the deposited official following the obligor’s request for withdrawal and correction of the conditions attached to the obligor’s deposit, the deposit for repayment shall have the effect as the deposit for repayment without any terms and conditions from the time of authorization

B. In the case of land expropriation, if public project operators deposit land expropriation compensation pursuant to the original adjudication of the local Land Expropriation Committee on condition that all documents necessary for the land expropriation transfer should be provided in return for consideration, and there was a correction authorization decision by deposit without consideration after the time of original adjudication expropriation, the land expropriation does not have any obligation to provide the above documents as consideration, and the validity of the correction authorization is retroactive to the time of initial deposit or the time of original adjudication. Therefore, the above deposit does not have the effect of the payment of compensation as stated in the original adjudication. Therefore, the original adjudication was invalidated as it falls under the case where public project operators under Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act did not pay or deposit the compensation by the time of expropriation by the time of the original adjudication, and it is also invalid by the Central Land Expropriation Committee which reported the invalidated judgment by a valid

C. Since the above ruling by the Central Land Expropriation Committee is not absolutely null and void, there is a benefit to seek revocation or nullification confirmation.

A. Article 487 of the Civil Code, Article 9 of the Deposit Act, Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 71Da874 delivered on June 30, 1971, 78Nu378 delivered on October 30, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 80Nu336 delivered on October 14, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu75 delivered on July 27, 1982

[Defendant-Appellant] Jind Village Development Project Promotion Committee (Attorney Park Nam-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

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

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu256 delivered on February 22, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

1. In the case of a deposit for repayment, unless the creditor accepts it, unless the creditor accepts it, the deposit for repayment is effective, and even if there was a decision to authorize the above request for correction from the deposited public official upon the debtor's request for withdrawal and correction of the terms attached to the deposit, the deposit for repayment is effective as the deposit for repayment without any conditions from the time of approval to the original deposit for repayment, and it does not have any reason to change the above legal principles in the deposit for payment under the Land Expropriation Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 71Da874 delivered on June 30, 197 and 78Nu378 delivered on October 30, 1979). Thus, in the case of land expropriation, if the public official deposits the land expropriation as stipulated in the adjudication of the local Land Expropriation Committee's original decision, the deposit for repayment is effective as the deposit for repayment with the deposited public official at the same time as the initial deposit for repayment without any conditions attached to the debtor's deposit for payment, and if the land expropriation becomes null and void at the same time as the original land expropriation becomes null and void.

However, since the above ruling of objection is not absolute nullity, there is a benefit to seek revocation or nullification confirmation of the objection (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu75 delivered on July 27, 1982).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff, a business operator, was unable to make a lawful deposit of land expropriation compensation determined by the original adjudication, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case disputing the disposition of this case on the premise of the original adjudication was unlawful as there was no legal interest in the lawsuit, since the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be viewed as unlawful since the plaintiff's legal representative, a business operator, made a deposit of this case with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City District Land Tribunal around May 25, 1979 on the condition that the plaintiff would provide all necessary documents before the expropriation of the land, but the plaintiff's receipt of the deposited money should not be viewed as illegal since the plaintiff's claim for correction of the above withdrawal of the condition attached to the deposit and received a correction order from the public official of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City District Court, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that it was unlawful as the plaintiff's claim of this case's cancellation of the original adjudication on the ground that it did not affect the original order of this case's cancellation of the compensation and its validity.

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 Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)