A. In a case where it is obvious that he/she would refuse to receive the compensation for expropriation, whether an entrepreneur can immediately deposit the compensation without real provision

(b) Whether the procedure of confinement is automatically null and void, where the written ruling of confinement has not been duly served on the inmate before the time of confinement;

(a) In case where public project operators fail to pay or deposit the compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal by the time of expropriation, the adjudication by the relevant Land Tribunal becomes null and void, and in case where it is deemed evident that the person who is to receive the compensation refuses or refuses to accept the compensation, public project operators may deposit the compensation immediately without actually providing it.

(b) cannot be deemed to be null and void a procedure of expropriation on the ground that the ruling of expropriation was not duly served on the inmate prior to the time of expropriation, provided that the period of filing an objection against the ruling of expropriation is run from the date on which the original copy of the ruling of expropriation was duly served.

(a)Article 61(2)1(b) of the Land Expropriation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Da2851 delivered on September 8, 1981 (Gong1981, 14322). Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9422 delivered on December 14, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 379) delivered on April 26, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1512)

Plaintiff

Attorney Jeon Young-young et al., Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu20742 delivered on June 15, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

In a case where public project operators fail to pay or deposit the compensation adjudicated by the competent land expropriation committee by the time of expropriation, the adjudication by the relevant land expropriation committee becomes null and void (Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act). Therefore, in a case where it is deemed evident that the person who is to receive the compensation refuses or refuses to receive the compensation, public project operators may immediately deposit the compensation without actually providing it (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2851 delivered on September 8, 1981).

The court below held that the plaintiff did not reside in the plaintiff's address since the defendant's employee visited the plaintiff at the same place, although he was under the night with his resident registration on the Daegu Suwon-gu ( Address 1 omitted) building without permission, the plaintiff could not find out the plaintiff's address through his address on the registry, but the plaintiff could not find it out the fact that the plaintiff continued to accommodate the land adjacent to the land in this case from the process of consultation with the business operator and the compensation amount for the land in this case is considerably low. Since the plaintiff could not raise an objection against the standard of compensation amount, and the plaintiff could not be seen as being responsible for the plaintiff's deposit and the Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan City's residential City's residential City's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's residential area's receipt of compensation amount's 9.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

It cannot be said that the procedure of confinement is null and void only because the written ruling of confinement was not delivered lawfully to the inmate before the time of confinement. However, since the period of raising an objection against the written ruling of confinement is initiated from the date of lawful delivery of the original written ruling of confinement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu9422, Dec. 14, 1993; 93Nu1360, Apr. 26, 1994). The judgment of the same purport is just and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to delivery, as otherwise pointed out in the grounds of appeal.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 17 and 25 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, an application for adjudication at the time of expropriation of land for the execution of the housing site development project shall be made within the project execution period as set forth in the execution plan for the housing site development project (Article 12 (1) and (2) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act), and so long as the deposit of compensation and the service of written adjudication on expropriation cannot be deemed null and void as legally determined by the court below as long as the service of the written adjudication on the deposit of compensation and written adjudication on expropriation cannot be deemed null and void, the execution period of the project shall be deemed lawful by applying for adjudication at the Daegu Metropolitan City, which is a business operator, for the expropriation of the land of this case from October 190 to December 31, 193, which

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)