A. The validity of land expropriation (effective) made by public project operators without their negligence by designating the nominal owner on the registry as the person under whose ownership is the person under whose ownership on the registry was the person under whose ownership, and whether the expropriation ruling made without the participation of the substantive owner is null and void (negative

B. Whether the acquisition by the Korea Land Development Corporation of a parcel of land for which an advance registration has been made is in violation of Article 12(5) of the Korea Land Development Corporation Act and thus null and void (negative)

A. In the case of land expropriation under the Land Expropriation Act, etc., if a project owner, without any negligence, considers a nominal owner on the register as a landowner, and completes the procedure of expropriation with the said owner as the person subject to expropriation, the effect of the expropriation cannot be denied. At the same time, the ownership already held by the owner of the subject matter of expropriation is extinguished, and even if the project owner or the Central Land Expropriation Committee may have known that there is a separate owner of the subject matter of expropriation, it cannot be deemed that the adjudication of expropriation made only on the ground of the fact that it is unlawful to deal with the subject matter of expropriation as owned by another person and without a substantive owner’s participation.

(b) Even if the Korea Land Development Corporation has completed a pre-registration for the land acquired by the expropriation, the disposal of the land is limited on the sole basis of the fact that the pre-registration has been completed, and the disposal of the land is not in violation of Article 12(5) of the Korea Land Development Corporation Act due to that fact, the land expropriation becomes effective.

(a) Article 187 of the Civil Code, Article 61 of the Land Transport Act, Article 61 / (a) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 67 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 12(5) of the Korea Land Development Corporation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 73Da1645 delivered on December 24, 1974 (Gong1975, 8253) (Gong1979, 1225) 79Da1369 delivered on September 25, 1979 (Gong1979, 1225) 91Da8654 delivered on May 10, 1991 (Gong191, 1615) 91Da15829 delivered on November 8, 191

Hanyang C&C Co., Ltd., Counsel for the next full-time director-time defendant-appellant

Korea Land Development Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na676 delivered on June 21, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, each of the above lands was designated as a prearranged land development district by the Housing Site Development Promotion Act as the project implementer on April 10, 1985, and the defendant was designated as a project implementer, and the housing site development project was implemented from October 29 to November 12 of the same year, and the land and goods protocol concerning each of the above lands were available for perusal at the Seoul Urban Relay Corporation, and the non-party, who is the title holder of the land at the time of the registration of the land at the time of the expropriation of this case, was deemed as the owner of the land at the time of the expropriation of this case, and the land at the time of the sale of this case's disposal of this case's land cannot be seen as being unlawful by the court below's determination that the land owner's disposal of this case's land was unlawful, and there was no response to the above determination of the court below's determination that the non-party's disposal of the land was invalid by the court of first instance.

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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)