In a case where a claim for cancellation of a ruling by excluding the remaining land is changed to a lawsuit claiming compensation for loss due to a price decrease in the remaining land on the ground that the disposition of cancellation of a ruling by excluding the remaining land is illegal, the standard time to determine whether the period for filing a lawsuit is complied with

If the price of the remaining land has decreased due to the expropriation of part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner, after receiving an objection against the Central Land Expropriation Committee by alleging that the disposition of expropriation that did not include the remaining land was unlawful, and thereafter filing a lawsuit against the Central Land Expropriation Committee claiming revocation of the adjudication, and if the company in the process of the lawsuit changed the lawsuit to the lawsuit claiming revocation of the adjudication to the lawsuit claiming compensation for damages due to a decrease in the price of the remaining land in addition to the defendant, the lawsuit claiming revocation of the adjudication was lawfully filed in compliance with the initial period of filing the lawsuit, the subsequent alteration is not unlawful even after the expiration of the period of filing the lawsuit.

Articles 45, 47, 48, and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 3 subparag. 2, Article 8, 10, 14, 21, 37, 39, 41, 42, and 44 of the Land Expropriation Act; Articles 235 and 236 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu852 Decided June 13, 1989 (Gong1989, 1094) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5331 Decided September 8, 1992 (Gong1992, 2898), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu335 Decided December 24, 1992 (Gong1993, 627), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20627 Decided September 15, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3414), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13948 Decided April 24, 1998

Plaintiff

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Go Young-deok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu49253 delivered on June 9, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. In a case where the price of remaining land has decreased due to the expropriation of part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner, after receiving an objection against the Central Land Expropriation Committee by asserting that the disposition of expropriation that did not include the remaining land was unlawful, and thereafter filing a lawsuit against the Central Land Expropriation Committee claiming revocation of the adjudication, and in a case where the company in the proceeding was changed to the lawsuit claiming revocation of the adjudication against the Central Land Expropriation Committee by adding the defendant to the lawsuit claiming revocation of the adjudication, if the lawsuit claiming revocation of the adjudication was lawfully filed due to a decrease in the price of the remaining land, as long as the lawsuit claiming revocation of the adjudication was duly instituted in compliance with the initial period of filing the lawsuit, the subsequent alteration is not unlawful since the period of filing the lawsuit expired (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13948, Apr. 24,

In the same purport, the court below's decision on the merits is justified on the premise that the modification of the lawsuit in this case is legitimate, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, this ground of appeal is

2. In addition, the court below's decision that the price of the remaining land of this case has fallen as stated in its decision is correct, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or misapprehension of the legal principle, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the grounds of appeal in this case

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)