The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Articles 26(1) and 16 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) and Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a project operator who has obtained project approval shall faithfully consult with landowners and persons concerned about compensation for land, etc., and shall notify landowners and persons concerned of the consultation period, time, venue and method of consultation, time, method and amount of compensation, the time, method and amount of compensation, and required documents required for the conclusion of a contract. Thus, if a project operator did not give notice to the mortgagee of the land to be expropriated, it is unlawful.

However, in the event that a project operator and a landowner fail to reach an agreement, and further payment or deposit of compensation, the mortgagee of the land is entitled to obtain a preferential repayment by exercising the subrogation right under Article 47 of the Land Compensation Act until the land owner's general property is mixed due to the payment or deposit of compensation.

Therefore, if it is impossible for the mortgagee to obtain preferential payment because he/she did not seize the landowner's right of subrogation or the right to claim payment of deposit money despite the fact that the mortgagee's compensation is paid to the landowner or deposit money is withdrawn from the landowner's general property at sufficient intervals to exercise the subrogation right before being mixed with the general property, the mortgagee's failure to obtain preferential payment from the compensation can be deemed to be the cause of failure of the project operator to give such consultation or notification.