Where a public project operator executes a construction on an object of expropriation without compensation under the Land Expropriation Act, the legal nature of the lawsuit seeking payment of the damages by the landowner.

Public project operators under the Land Expropriation Act are obligated to compensate until the time of expropriation for losses suffered by landowners or persons concerned due to the expropriation of land, and acquire rights to the subject matter at the time of expropriation on condition of payment of compensation or deposit. Thus, if construction on the subject matter without such compensation causes losses to landowners or persons concerned by executing construction on the subject matter of expropriation, such act constitutes tort, and even if the term "compensation for losses" is used in a lawsuit claiming such tort, it shall be deemed as civil damages claim.

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Park Jae-in, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Intervenor joining the Plaintiff

Korea National Housing Corporation

Busan High Court Order 88Ra14 dated June 23, 198

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Under the Land Expropriation Act, public project operators are obligated to compensate until the time of expropriation for losses suffered by landowners or persons concerned due to the expropriation of land, and acquire rights to the subject matter at the time of expropriation on the condition of payment of compensation or deposit. Thus, if construction on the subject matter without such compensation causes losses to landowners or persons concerned, it constitutes tort and even if such tort is used in terms of compensation for losses, it is nothing more than a civil claim for damages.

According to the records, the summary of the facts of the plaintiff's claim of this case has been operated in Jinju-si ( Address omitted). The defendant started the suspension work without legitimate compensation for the facilities and business profits of the plaintiff's possession while accepting the leased apartment and constructing the leased apartment, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff in the amount of KRW 5,000,000, and the amount of KRW 30,000,000, and the amount of KRW 35,000,000, and the amount of KRW 35,000,000.

The Plaintiff’s assertion appears to be the purport of seeking compensation for damages due to unlawful acts lacking prior compensation, rather than the purport of demanding compensation for damages under public law as stipulated in the Land Expropriation Act. As such, the lower court should have deliberated and judged whether tort, such as the Plaintiff’s owner, can be recognized. As a result of the deliberation, the lower court should have rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for damages on the ground that, even if the Plaintiff had already gone through prior compensation procedures such as the Defendant’s owner, the amount of the determination on compensation can only be contested in the relevant procedures, and it cannot be subject to tort liability, such as the case where the Plaintiff had already gone through prior compensation procedures.

Nevertheless, without any name, the lower court deemed that the Plaintiff’s cause of the instant claim is a party to public law directly as the Defendant, and deemed that the amount determined as compensation in the adjudication of expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee is less than the amount, and thus, deemed the claim for increased compensation or additional compensation as a party litigation, and maintained the first instance court’s decision of transfer of jurisdiction as it is based on the determination that such lawsuit constitutes administrative litigation. Accordingly, it is inconsistent with the previous Supreme Court precedents, and thus, it does not constitute an unlawful act that affected the conclusion by extensively interpreting the compensation provisions under the Land Expropriation Act as including damages under the civil law, such as the instant case.

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)