Qualifications, etc. for defendants in administrative litigation concerning land expropriation;

In an administrative litigation on land expropriation, the Central Land Expropriation Committee shall file a lawsuit with the owners and related persons under Articles 25, 73, 74, and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, after going through such procedures as consultation with the competent Land Expropriation Committee, the adjudication of the competent Land Expropriation Committee, and the adjudication on an objection filed by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, etc., within one month from the date on which the written adjudication on the objection is served.

Articles 25, 73, 74, and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act

Monogenesis

Seoul Regional Construction Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu4439 delivered on October 31, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the records, there is no error of rules of evidence or incomplete hearing in the fact-finding of the court below.

2. According to Article 29 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the matters to be adjudicated by the Land Expropriation Committee shall be 1. 1. The area and method of using the land to be expropriated or used, 2. 3. Compensation for losses, 3. The time and period of expropriation or use, 4. Other matters stipulated in this Act, and pursuant to Articles 25, 73, 74 and 75-2 of the Act, public project operators conducting public interest projects under Article 3 of the Act shall consult with the land owner and person concerned in order to acquire or extinguish rights to the land after the public announcement of fact-finding, and if the consultation is not reached or impossible, a person who has an objection or objection against the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee or the local Land Expropriation Committee may file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee within one month from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the written adjudication, and if there is an objection against the adjudication, within one month from the date of delivery of the written adjudication, the said administrative litigation shall be brought to the said Land Expropriation Committee within the next period.

According to the facts established by the court below, the defendant, as an enterprise owner of a road project within the field of paddy-si - the plaintiff was publicly notified by Gyeonggi-do under Article 118 of the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice after obtaining intellectual approval and approval of a project implementation plan from the Gyeonggi-do Governor, the defendant filed an application for adjudication for expropriation with the Central Land Expropriation Committee as to the 178 square meters of the 50 square meters of the 319-69 square meters of the 319-69 square meters of the 489 square meters belonging to the plaintiff located within the project area, on the ground that the consultation was not reached, but the consultation was not reached, and the Central Land Expropriation Committee shall accept each part of the land incorporated into the above road project on October 22, 1985, the compensation for losses shall be 5,130,000 won in total, and the expropriation period shall be 5,11,000 won in the same year, and it is justified in the judgment of the court below against the defendant's appeal to revoke the excess portion of administrative litigation.

In addition, there are circumstances such as the defendant's response to Gap evidence 10, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant is eligible for the defendant as to the lawsuit of this case, and even if there is a legal interest to seek revocation of excessive confinement disposition, such as the purport of the claim, to the plaintiff, even if there is a legal interest to the plaintiff.

However, if the requirements of Article 71 of the Act are met for part of the land owned by the plaintiff, it is a separate issue that the plaintiff can redeem the land according to the prescribed procedure.

3. Therefore, there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below from the opposite position.

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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)