Land expropriation under the Urban Planning Act and the Land Expropriation Act, in case where the business operator is unable to determine the recipient without negligence, even if the right holder is determined as the recipient, the lawful and effective effect of expropriation shall be the owner of the object of expropriation, and at the same time the ownership already held shall be extinguished, and the business operator shall acquire the right completely and definitely.

Land expropriation pursuant to the Urban Planning Act and this Act shall be lawful and effective, even if the public project operator is determined as the person subject to expropriation without negligence, the ownership already held by the public project operator is extinguished, and at the same time the public project operator shall acquire the right to the land expropriation.

Article 1, Article 23 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 61 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 64 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 70 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 10 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 11 of the Urban Planning Act

Plaintiff

Jeju Development Company and one other

Gwangju High Court Decision 71Na15 delivered on March 16, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s agent.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the land of this case was owned by the non-party 1, and the non-party 2 died, the registration of ownership transfer was made in order through the non-party 3, through the non-party 4, and the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 were not entitled to the land expropriation of this case, and the registration of cancellation of the above registration was completed on the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 were not entitled to the land expropriation of this case, and the land was no longer entitled to the land expropriation of this case by the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4, who was the owner of this case's land was no longer entitled to the land expropriation of this case, and the land was no longer entitled to the land expropriation of this case's land due to the non-party 4's new land expropriation of this case's land by the court below's decision. Accordingly, the land expropriation of this case's purport is no clear.

The grounds of appeal by Kim Jong-dae are examined.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the land expropriation without any erroneous payment to the plaintiff against the non-party 4, who is only the nominal owner in the form of the site of this case is null and void, and that the land of this case may not be purchased by the public project operator in light of the purpose of the construction project to be implemented above, and even if the land of this case can be used until the construction project is implemented, it is erroneous in the original judgment that the land of this case cannot be purchased by the public project operator, and the land of this case cannot be purchased by the public project operator, and it is no longer necessary to continue to use or expropriate the land of this case as the public project operator. The defendant has the duty to deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff by the Article 70 of the Land Expropriation Act along with the cover structure attached thereto. Accordingly, since the Industrial Bank of Korea constructed the building of this case without any legitimate title, the defendant's original judgment was unlawful in interpreting the facts and interpretation of the law, which is contrary to the purport of the original judgment that the land of this case was no legitimate ground to interpret the new land expropriation and the land expropriation of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of appeal.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)