Whether a landowner may claim compensation for losses even if there is no law that prescribes the standards and methods for compensation for losses.

If the owner of land wishes to claim compensation for any local government which opens a road on which he owns or uses the land, he may do so only by the law which sets the standards and methods of compensation for the loss under the provisions of Article 20(3) of the revised Constitution.

Attorney Kim Yong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na332 delivered on April 15, 1976

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Defendant’s agent’s ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

According to the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, even if the defendant legally opened the land of this case as a road in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Planning Act and uses it in possession, it shall not be exempted from liability to compensate for losses suffered by the plaintiff who is the land owner. In this case, the purport of this case is that the defendant can seek compensation for losses by means of a direct civil procedure.

However, according to the provisions of Article 20(3) of the amended Constitution, the criteria and methods for the expropriation, use or restriction of property rights due to public necessity and the compensation therefor shall be prescribed by the Act. At least after the enforcement of the amended Constitution, in order to claim compensation for losses, unlike the case of Article 20(3) of the amended Constitution, it shall be possible only by the Act which provides the criteria and methods for the compensation for losses. However, even though it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for losses after the enforcement of the amended Constitution, the lower court determined to the effect that the compensation for losses should be made and the compensation for such losses should be made under the conditions as determined by the civil court, even if there is no

In this case, it is difficult to avoid the illegality of applying erroneously the provisions of Article 20(3) of the amended Constitution. Since the grounds for this argument are as follows, the part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and this part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the original judgment.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)