Among the damages caused continuously due to illegal causes occurred at the time of the enforcement of the former State Compensation Act, the principle of decentralization is not applied to the damages after the enforcement of the current State Compensation Act.

The former State Compensation Act (Act No. 1899 of March 3, 67) does not require a full value of the Compensation Council for the damages incurred continuously due to illegal causes that occurred at the time of enforcement of the State Compensation Act (Act No. 231 of September 8, 51).

Article 9 of the State Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da1316 Decided December 9, 1969

Plaintiff

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na53 delivered on November 7, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na53 delivered on November 7, 1969

The final appeal is dismissed, respectively.

The costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant, and the costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff.

(1) We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal

In the case of the State Compensation Act, which was promulgated and enforced after the enforcement of Act No. 1899 of March 3, 1967, it was a previous precedent that the former State Compensation Act Article 9 does not apply to the former State Compensation Act (the case occurred at the time of the enforcement of the former State Compensation Act). According to the facts duly recognized by the court below, the defendant was incorporated the land owned by the plaintiff without legitimate title into a road site from November 10, 1966 to use it as a road at present. Thus, it is obvious that the above defendant's tort was occurred before the current State Compensation Act was enforced, but at least before the current State Compensation Act was enforced, the former Council of No. 99 of the State Compensation Act cannot be applied to the damages incurred after the enforcement of the current State Compensation Act. However, it is doubtful that the current State Compensation Act Article 9 of the current State Compensation Act Article 9 of the current State Compensation Act should not be applied to the damages incurred after the enforcement of the former State Compensation Act. However, it cannot be viewed that the previous Council of No. 16 of the State Compensation Act No. 9196.

(2) We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the amount of damages of the party to the case in consideration of the result of the appraiser 1's appraisal in the first instance court and the purport of the whole pleadings, and rejected the appraiser 2 in the court below's appraisal result and the testimony of the same person as the appraiser 2 in the court below's appraisal result, and there is no error of law by examining the above evidence cooking in the court below's records. Thus, there is no ground to criticize the court below's legitimate evidence cooking and the fact

Therefore, each of the grounds for appeal by the original defendant shall not be any or all of them, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)