Effect of adjudication in case of the Land Expropriation Act Article 75-2

If a decision on an objection is confirmed under Article 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, it shall be deemed that there exists a final and conclusive judgment under the Civil Procedure Act, and its certified copy shall have the same effect as an executory certified copy of the judgment, and the lawsuit seeking the payment of compensation for losses

Article 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da714 delivered on April 23, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 10693Da10693 delivered on June 22, 197, Supreme Court Decision 22Nu158 delivered on June 15, 200, Decision 75-2(2)1798 delivered on Land Expropriation Act, Court Gazette 489No78

Plaintiff 1 and eight others

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District Court (72Gahap2343) in the first instance trial

Supreme Court Decision 73Da714 Delivered on April 23, 1974

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The lawsuit of the plaintiff, etc. shall be dismissed.

All litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 1,650,00, KRW 925,00 to the plaintiff 2, and KRW 679,285, KRW 455 to the plaintiff 3, respectively, KRW 452,87, KRW 226,428, KRW 113,214 to the plaintiff 6, and KRW 113,214 to the plaintiff 9, and KRW 5 percent per annum from August 22, 1968 to the full payment. Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim against it shall be dismissed. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances.

In the absence of dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence 1-2 (each judgment), Nos. 6 (No. 6), and No. 4 (No. 4), and the purport of the parties' pleadings, the defendant market price becomes a public project operator around August 1968 and applied for a ruling to the Central Land Expropriation Committee (the heir of the plaintiffs other than the above plaintiffs) by accepting the land owned by the plaintiff 1, 2, and the non-party (the heir of the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs) in order to implement road expansion projects from Seoul Station around August 1968. The above committee filed an objection against the original adjudication on the nine days of that month, and the above committee rejected the objection on April 18, 1969. The above land owners were to have again filed an administrative lawsuit against the same committee on the compensation amount of the original adjudication, and the above land owners were to have received the Seoul High Court judgment from August 23, 197 to the Seoul High Court on the compensation amount of the damages which became final and conclusive by the Central Land Expropriation Committee.

In this case, the above re-adjudication under Article 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act shall be deemed to have a final and conclusive judgment under the Civil Procedure Act, and since the above certified copy of the ruling shall have the same effect as the certified copy of the judgment with executory power, the lawsuit of the plaintiff, etc. seeking the payment of compensation for losses recognized in the above re-adjudication shall be dismissed as unlawful, and since the original judgment different from this result is unfair, the lawsuit by the plaintiff, etc. shall be dismissed by its cancellation, and the litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff

Judges Lee Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)