In case where an adjudication dismissing an application for adjudication of expropriation becomes final and conclusive, whether an entrepreneur may apply for adjudication of expropriation again (affirmative), and whether the Land Tribunal may apply for adjudication of expropriation again on the basis thereof (affirmative)

With respect to the validity of the ruling dismissing an application for expropriation, it shall not be deemed that Article 75-2 (3) of the Land Expropriation Act applies or shall not be applied mutatis mutandis to the validity of the final ruling, and even if the ruling dismissing the application for expropriation by a public project operator has become final and conclusive, the public project operator may apply for the adjudication again unless it conflicts with the limitation on the period of application for expropriation, etc., and the Land Tribunal may

Article 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu16698 delivered on September 11, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing.

In addition, the evidence cited as arguments does not seem to have been excluded from the Cheongju 3 Industrial Complex Development Project, but rather, according to the records, the above industrial complex development project and the Cheongju-si District Housing Site Development Project were conducted concurrently, and the project district is not overlapped. Therefore, it is not recognized that the Cheongju-dong House, including the land in this case, was changed from the area subject to the Housing Site Development Project to the area subject to the Housing Site Development Project.

As to the validity of the ruling dismissing the application for expropriation, it cannot be deemed that Article 75-2(3) of the Land Expropriation Act is applied or applied mutatis mutandis to the validity of the final ruling, and even if the ruling dismissing the application for expropriation by the public project operator becomes final and conclusive, the public project operator may apply for expropriation again unless it conflicts with the limitation on the period of application for expropriation, and the Land Tribunal may make a new ruling on expropriation based on this.

All arguments can not be adopted as a misunderstanding of the contents of relevant evidence, or a criticism on the fact-finding and judgment of the court below based on its independent opinion.

There is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, on August 21, 1991, the plaintiff's attorney withdraws his claim on compensation for losses on the date of the eighth day of pleading of the court below and withdraws his claim on the defendant's Cheongju. Thus, the court below does not need to deliberate and decide on the claim on the theory of lawsuit disputing the amount of compensation as stipulated in the judgment of the court below, and it is only a fact that the plaintiff's assertion on compensation again at the court of original instance did not assert it.

There is no reason for the issue.

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 Choi Young-young (Presiding Justice)