The validity of land expropriation made by public project operators to the persons who own the title on the register without negligence;

In the case of land expropriation, if a public project operator considers a person holding a title on the register as a landowner because he/she was unaware of a real landowner without negligence and completed the expropriation procedure following a purchase consultation, the effect of the expropriation cannot be denied, and the ownership already held by the owner of the object of expropriation is extinguished, and at the same time the public project operator acquires the right completely and clearly.

Article 187 of the Civil Act, Article 67 of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da316 delivered on June 9, 198 (Gong1981, 13986) 91Da8654 delivered on May 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 1615) 91Da27617 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong192,104)

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na61111 delivered on June 9, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is examined in light of records. The defendant, as a public project operator, acquired the forest land of this case through the land expropriation procedure, without the plaintiff's negligence due to the fact that the forest land of this case, which is the land subject to expropriation, is owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was not aware of the real owner without any negligence due to the fact that the registration conversion was made by mistake in the public official in charge of cadastral records under his jurisdiction, and the other persons registered as the owner on the register, deemed them as the land owner and completed the registration transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant after the purchase consultation with them. After the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendant to the purport that the above registration is null and void, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case to the purport that the above registration is null and void, and followed the procedure for the confirmation of the completion of consultation with the defendant, but on the sole basis of these circumstances, the court below's decision that the agreement on the forest of this case cannot be seen as going against the good faith principle, or as an unfair or anti-social act.

In addition, if the defendant, without any negligence, deemed the owner on the register as the owner of the land and completed the procedure of expropriation following a purchase consultation by deeming the owner on the register as the owner of the land, the effect of the expropriation cannot be denied, and the ownership already held by the owner on the register as the owner of the land is extinguished, and at the same time the defendant as the business operator has fully and clearly acquired his right (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da27617, Nov. 12, 1991). In addition, even if the defendant raised a lawsuit seeking invalidation of the above forest by the plaintiff and completed the procedure of confirmation on the formation of the above agreement, such agreement cannot be deemed as automatically null and void, so long as the defendant completed the procedure of expropriation by designating the owner on the register of the land on the register as the owner of the land on the register of the land on the register as the owner of the land on the register of the land, it is reasonable to view that the above forest was acquired as the land expropriation effect. We cannot accept any dissenting opinion.

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 Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)