In case where the land owned by another person was illegally incorporated into a road site since the enforcement of the former State Compensation Act and continues to hold it illegal possession, it is necessary to take the procedure of the Compensation Council for Damages for a specific period after the enforcement of the new State Compensation Act due to such illegal possession.

If the State Compensation Act (Act No. 231 of September 8, 51) was abolished and the land owned by another person is unlawfully incorporated into a road site from the time of enforcement of the State Compensation Act (Act No. 231 of September 8, 51), and continuously occupied it, the procedure of the Compensation Council is unnecessary to take the procedure of seeking compensation for damages on a clinical basis for a specific period before the enforcement of the former State Compensation Act (Act No. 189

Article 9 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na74 delivered on July 16, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na74 delivered on July 16, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The Defendant’s agent’s ground of appeal:

As determined by the court below, if the defendant did not take a lawful procedure of 8th 9 squarebebbes on the site of this case, which is owned by another person, at the time of the enforcement of the former State Compensation Act, and is incorporated into a road site, and illegally occupied and used, the claim for damages by the landowner on the ground of the defendant's illegal occupancy is different from the time of the claim according to the time of the claim during the occupation period, even though all of the claim is derived from part of or from the basic claim arising from the defendant's illegal occupancy. Therefore, the landowner who had not been under the previous system of the Compensation Council due to the change in the State Compensation Act while the illegal occupancy has continued, and there is no need to go through the Compensation Council every time when the defendant claims the above partial or derivative damages to the defendant, and such claim is the same as this case where the landowner at the time of the deprivation of possession, or where the successor to the former status after the acquisition after the acquisition of the ownership, or it is the same as this case where the plaintiff claims compensation for damages on the rent after the acquisition.

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.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng