The validity of the consultation details under Article 15-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act prepared before the consultation period expires.

The purpose of Article 15-2(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act is, in principle, to stipulate that if an agreement is not reached between project operators, landowners and persons concerned within the consultation period on land expropriation, a written statement of agreement shall be prepared after the lapse of the consultation period. However, if it is evident that landowners and persons concerned clearly express their intent to refuse the agreement or are unlikely to reach agreement even if it is waited by the expiration of the consultation period, it shall not be deemed a mistake even if the written statement of agreement is prepared prior to the expiration of

Articles 15-2 (1) and 15-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

The Central Land Tribunal (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu326 delivered on August 21, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 15-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act provides that public project operators shall, for consultation under Article 25(1) of the same Act, immediately determine the period and method of the agreement, the timing and method of compensation, methods and procedures, etc. after the public announcement of project approval under Article 16(1) of the same Act, and Article 16(2) of the same Act provides that where an agreement is not reached within the said consultation period, landowners and persons concerned shall prepare a written statement of agreement and shall affix their signatures and seals, and where landowners and persons concerned refuse the agreement or are unable to affix their signatures and seals, it shall be deemed that a observer should sign and affix their seals and seals under Article 23(3) and (4) of the Land Expropriation Act, if the agreement is not reached within the said consultation period, it shall be deemed that public project operators, landowners and persons concerned should prepare a written statement of agreement after the expiration of the said consultation period. However, even if the landowner and persons concerned clearly expressed their intent to refuse the agreement or when considering all other circumstances before and after the consultation period expires, it is evident.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, ○ University, which is a business entity of this case, shall comprehensively examine the evidence of this city, and after consultation with the owners of the land and goods to be expropriated and about the purchase of the land and goods from ○ University and its affiliated school site development facilities from 1978, 1978, 72 of the above land and building owners until December 10, 1982, 108, 36 of the above land and building owners, including the plaintiffs, were consulted with 108, but the consultation was not conducted by 1083 as of August 7, 1982, 198, 208, 197, 208, 197, 208, 197, 208, 197, 208, 20, 197, 207, 300, 197, 197, 207, 208, 200, 17, etc.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)