Where the public project operator fails to notify or publicly announce to the repurchase authority that there has been any land subject to repurchase, the period for exercising the repurchase right

In light of the purport of the provisions of Articles 71(2), 71(3), and 72 of the Land Expropriation Act, if there is any land to be redeemed due to the failure to use all the expropriated land within five years from the date of the acquisition through consultation or the date of expropriation after the approval of the project, if there is any land to be repurchased, the public project operator may exercise the right to repurchase within six months from the date of receipt of such notification or the date of public notice, and even if the public project operator fails to give notice or make public notice of repurchase, the repurchase right holder may exercise the right to repurchase after the date of consultation or expropriation after the approval of the project, but it is reasonable to view

Articles 71(2) and 72 of the Land Expropriation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Gong162, Sept. 24, 1991) (Gong1991, 2594, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant in Daegu Special Metropolitan City

Daegu District Court Decision 92Na11549 delivered on February 19, 1993

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

If the registration of transfer of ownership based on land expropriation in the name of the defendant with respect to the forest of this case is completed, such registration shall be presumed to have been lawful, and in order to reverse the presumption power of this registration, the plaintiff who asserts the invalidity of the cause shall bear the burden of proof. Thus, the court shall not necessarily exercise the right of explanation and examine the truth.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment of the court below erred by failing to exercise or examine the right of explanation such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the reason that the sales contract was invalidated or revoked because the forest land of this case was sold by an expression of intention, mistake or fraud, which is not a fact-finding, is a new argument that was not asserted by the plaintiff in the original judgment, and cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

In light of the purport of the provisions of Articles 71(2), 71(3), and 72 of the Land Expropriation Act, if land to be redeemed arises due to the failure to use all the expropriated land within five years from the date of acquisition through consultation or expropriation after project approval, the public project operator may exercise the repurchase right within six months from the date of receipt of such notification or public notice, and even if public project operator did not give notice or public notice of repurchase, the repurchase right holder may exercise the repurchase right, but the repurchase right shall be deemed extinguished after the lapse of six years from the date of acquisition through consultation or expropriation after project approval (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu3184, Apr. 27, 1990; 91Da8456, Sept. 24, 191). Thus, the judgment of the court below, which held that the Plaintiff’s repurchase right of this case was extinguished due to such opinion, cannot be said to be justified, without examining whether the public project operator has given notice to the Plaintiff.

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 Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)