The effect of receiving the deposit money of land expropriation compensation without reserving an objection among the administrative litigation against the ruling by the Central Land Expropriation Committee by the landowner;

In cases where public project operators deposit land expropriation compensation adjudicated by the Land Tribunal in accordance with Article 61 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act, it is reasonable to recognize the validity of the deposit and to regard the receipt of the compensation in accordance with the purpose of the deposit in return for the decision of the Land Tribunal, inasmuch as public project operators perform the obligation to pay compensation to be borne by the land owners following the expropriation of land, and the deposit is no different from the deposit for repayment under Article 487 of the Civil Act. Thus, if the land owners receive the deposit without any objection, it is reasonable to recognize the validity of the deposit and to regard the receipt of the compensation in accordance with the purport of the deposit by taking over the decision of the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the public project operators’ obligation to pay the compensation is definitely extinguished due to the legal effect of the deposit reason. In this case, even though the landowner did not have to express explicitly, it cannot be deemed that there was an implied expression of intent to suspend the deposit.

Article 61 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Nu197 delivered on November 9, 1982, delivered on July 25, 1989

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Attorney Lee Ba-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Incheon Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu2979 delivered on May 25, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

In cases where public project operators deposit land expropriation compensation adjudicated by the Land Tribunal in accordance with Article 61 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act, the deposit is to perform the obligation to pay compensation to land owners according to the use of land, and it does not differ from the deposit for repayment under Article 487 of the Civil Act. Thus, if the land owners receive the deposit without any objection, it is reasonable to recognize the validity of the deposit and to regard the receipt of the compensation in accordance with the purport of the deposit by accepting the decision of the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that public project operators’ liability to pay compensation is extinguished after legal effect due to the occurrence of deposit cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Nu197, Nov. 9, 1982). In this case, although the expression of intent to withhold the deposit is not necessarily explicitly required, it cannot be viewed that the landowner had made an objection to the increase in the deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Meu1053, Jul. 25, 1989).

The judgment of the court below with the same purport is just, and it cannot be deemed that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to issue

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The issue is that the plaintiff's claim for payment of the deposit money of this case is null and void as it is an expression of intention that is not a true intention, or is an expression of intent due to mistake, and this is based on a new fact that was not alleged in the original judgment, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)