(a) The scope of persons who can claim the invalidation of adjudication due to the non-payment of compensation under Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act; or, in case where the indication of the entire amount of claims subject to seizure and assignment order is indicated as "the remainder after deducting the claims secured by provisional registration from the claims for compensation due to land expropriation", whether the secured party must seize the claims under Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act in order to deduct the amount of compensation from the amount of compensation for losses

A. Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that if a project operator fails to pay or deposit the compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal by the time of expropriation, the adjudication becomes null and void, and if a project operator fails to pay or deposit the full amount of the compensation by the time of expropriation, the adjudication shall be null and void, and therefore, if the project operator fails to pay or deposit the full amount of the compensation, the adjudication shall be null and void, and the project operator shall not be able to acquire the ownership of the land or goods and shall not extinguish any other rights to the land or goods, and the argument that the adjudication is null and void due to the above reasons shall not be deemed to be limited to a person who has a legal relation to the land

B. In the event that the obligor's indication of the entire amount of the claim for compensation for losses arising from the instant real estate held against the garnishee, "the remainder which remains after deducting the amount of the claim secured by provisional registration for the purpose of security which was made with respect to the instant real estate among the claims for compensation for losses arising from the instant real estate, up to the amount of the claim," such claims shall be deemed as the amount obtained by deducting the amount of the claim secured by the provisional registration of this case from the compensation for losses under Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act, regardless of whether or not the person who has the provisional registration security right seizes the claims under Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act, regardless of whether or not the provisional registration right holder seizes the claims under Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act, and if the person who has the provisional registration seizes the claims under Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act, it shall not be interpreted that the amount of the claims of the person who has the provisional registration security right holder

(a)Articles 61 and 65 of the Land Expropriation Act; Articles 559 and 564 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu24346 delivered on June 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 1458). Supreme Court Decision 92Ma380 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong192, 2512)

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

Busan District Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Intervenor 1 and four others

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na48651 delivered on August 20, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

A. Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that if a project operator fails to pay or deposit the compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal by the time of expropriation, the adjudication becomes null and void, and if a project operator fails to pay or deposit the full amount of the compensation by the time of expropriation, the adjudication concerned shall become null and void, and therefore, if the project operator fails to pay or deposit the full amount of the compensation, it shall not be able to acquire the ownership of the land or goods, and no other right to the land or goods shall be extinguished, and the argument that the adjudication is null and void due to the above reasons shall be deemed null and void only by anyone who has the right to the relevant land or goods or the right to the compensation, and shall not be deemed to be entitled to have a direct right to the project operator. The plaintiff shall have an interest in claiming the invalidation

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' main claim of this case based on the premise that the person who can claim the invalidation of the adjudication on the ground that the compensation has not been paid or deposited is limited to the person who has the right to claim the compensation directly against the business operator. The plaintiffs merely have a security right to the land of this case cannot assert the invalidation of the adjudication of this case. Thus, the court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' main claim of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of

B. As determined by the court below, the indication of the entire amount of claims is "the amount up to the claim amount of the same defendant's supplementary intervenor among the remainder which remains after deducting the claims secured by provisional registration for the purpose of security against the plaintiffs' claims based on the provisional registration for the purpose of security, from among the claims for compensation for the expropriation of the real estate held by the obligor against the third obligor," issued to the defendant's supplementary intervenor 1, the defendant's supplementary intervenor 4, the defendant's supplementary intervenor 3, and the defendant's supplementary intervenor 2. In addition, if the defendant's supplementary intervenor 5 did not deducts the entire amount of claims from the provisional registration for the purpose of security against the third obligor, the whole amount of claims secured by the provisional registration for the purpose of security against the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor 1, the defendant's supplementary intervenor 4, the defendant's supplementary intervenor 3, and the defendant's supplementary intervenor 2's provisional registration for the purpose of seizure and assignment order for the real estate of this case, the whole amount of claims secured by the plaintiff's provisional registration for security and assignment order of this case can not be interpreted.

However, the court below held otherwise, in relation to the case where the plaintiffs acquired superior status as a security right holder by seizing the compensation claim of this case as a security right in the above provisional registration in each of the above claims seizure and assignment order, the plaintiffs should be excluded from the object of seizure and assignment order of the defendant supplementary intervenor to the extent of the seizure of the plaintiffs' compensation claim. If the plaintiffs did not seize the claims in reality, the part that excluded the plaintiffs' claims in the seizure and assignment order of the defendant supplementary intervenor's above claims should be lost its meaning, and eventually, the defendant supplementary intervenor's claims in accordance with the seizure and assignment order of each of the above claims of this case were each claims of the defendant supplementary intervenor among the compensation claim of this case where the plaintiffs did not deduct the amount of claims of this case. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of claims to be seized and entirely transferred by the seizure and assignment order of claims of this case, and there is also reason to point

C. Ultimately, in the instant case, if the plaintiffs' claims secured by the provisional registration of this case exist, each of the above claims of the defendant's supplementary intervenor against the defendant's supplementary intervenor pursuant to the attachment and assignment order of each of the above claims shall be limited to the amount obtained by deducting the plaintiffs' claims secured by the provisional registration of this case from the amount of the compensation claims of this case (in the case of the defendant's supplementary intervenor 5, the remaining defendant's supplementary intervenor shall be deducted from the amount of the claims of this case). If no compensation exists as a result of deducting the plaintiffs' claims, or if there is competition between the claims and the collection order of the non-party's claims and the seizure order of the non-party's provisional registration of this case, the above assignment order of each of the above claims shall be null and void. Thus, the defendant's payment of the amount to the defendant's supplementary intervenor to the defendant's supplementary intervenor shall not be deemed a legitimate compensation unless it is recognized as a repayment to the quasi-occupant without negligence pursuant to Article 470 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the compensation amount shall not be deemed to be null and void by the Land Expropriation Act.

2. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)