[1] The case holding that in case where a legal brief pointing out the illegality of an objection filed during a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of a decision on use, the purport of the claim was modified to seek the cancellation of the decision in light of the previous and previous circumstances

[2] Whether the compensation for losses for the remaining land under the Land Expropriation Act is excluded in addition to the compensation for underground use under the Urban Railroad Act (affirmative)

[1] The case holding that in a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of a decision on use, the plaintiff only submitted a preparatory document pointing out the illegality of the decision within one month from the plaintiff, but did not submit a written amendment of the purport of the claim, but the purport of the claim was modified to seek the cancellation of the decision in light of the previous and previous circumstances.

[2] The Urban Railroad Act and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance provide for the object, criteria and method only with respect to the compensation for the use of underground segment specially incorporated in urban railroad construction business, considering the special public interest of urban railroad construction business and the special characteristics of the use of underground segment, it shall be interpreted to the effect that the use of such underground segment is limited to the compensation for underground use under such provisions, and further, it shall be applied the Land Expropriation Act to the effect that the compensation for the remaining land (the compensation for the loss, other than the underground portion incorporated into the construction among the lands owned by the plaintiffs, shall be limited to the compensation for the decrease of the price) is not necessary

[1] Article 21 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 126 and 235 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 47, 48, and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 26 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act, Article 4-6 of the former Urban Railroad Act (amended by Act No. 4992 of Dec. 31, 1994), Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Railroad Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14722 of Jul. 6, 1995), Article 23(3) of the Constitution

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu16270 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1401) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4341 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1190), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1441 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 556)

Kim Jong-chul et al. (Attorneys Lee Im-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Kang Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu4778 delivered on April 28, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, a person who is dissatisfied with the ruling of expropriation or use by the central or local land expropriation committee shall file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and if he is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Central Land Expropriation Committee, not with the ruling of expropriation or use, a lawsuit for revocation shall be filed against the said ruling. However, on September 17, 1993, the plaintiffs, by the lawsuit in this case, seek for increased payment of compensation under the premise of cancellation and cancellation of the above part among the ruling of use against the defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the ground that the part of the ruling of use which was determined by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on September 17, 1993 is illegal and unjust. While the ruling of the National Land Expropriation Committee was made on September 5, 1994 during the period of the original judgment, the plaintiffs did not modify the purport of seeking cancellation of the said ruling within one month from the date of receiving the written ruling, and thus, the claim for cancellation of use cannot be deemed to include the purport of seeking nullification.

2. However, according to the records, while filing a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of compensation for losses due to the use of the underground portion of the lands owned by the plaintiffs, it appears that the Central Land Expropriation Committee did not raise an objection within 4 months after the plaintiffs raised an objection, and thus, the lawsuit subject to the adjudication of first use is deemed to have been first filed. The court below, on May 20, 1994, ordered the Defendants to present an objection only on the first date for pleading, which does not constitute an object of revocation, and later designated the date for pleading until the original and the defendant raise an objection at their request, but later designated the date for pleading until the date for pleading was rejected at their request on September 5, 1994 (this decision was delivered within 1 month after the date for pleading was delivered by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs were also dismissed from the date of pleading to the court below on December 27, 1994, and the above decision was later made within 9 days after the date for pleading, and the plaintiffs were also dismissed from the date of pleading to the court below's rejection.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the ground that the purport of the claim is not modified by the above preparatory document and it remains as a lawsuit seeking revocation of the use decision as it is, and thus, is subject to the usage decision that cannot be the subject of the revocation lawsuit. It is deemed that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3. However, according to the records, the court below found that the amount of compensation due to the incorporation of part of the underground part of the land in this case owned by the plaintiffs into urban railroad construction business was calculated by multiplying the reasonable price of the land to be incorporated (the area of the underground part incorporated and the surface part corresponding to the vertical length) by the area of the land to be incorporated into the reasonable price of the land (the area of the underground part incorporated and the surface part corresponding to the vertical length) and the three-dimensional low-level utilization rate. Such compensation amount is not determined by the Urban Railroad Act (amended by Act No. 4992 of Dec. 31, 1994), Article 4-6 of the Urban Railroad Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14722 of Jul. 6, 1995), Article 5 of the Ordinance on the Compensation Standards for Land Use in the Underground Part (Ordinance No. 2931 of May 15, 1992) and Article 7 of the Land Expropriation Act (the reasonable method of the remaining underground part of the land to be incorporated into the urban railroad construction project.)

In conclusion, the court below's rejection of the lawsuit of this case is erroneous because the lawsuit of this case is subject to a use ruling which cannot be subject to a revocation lawsuit, and it was not modified to a lawsuit subject to the objection ruling. However, as long as the plaintiffs' claim of this case is not erroneous as it is no longer justified as the judgment on the objection of this case is no longer justified as it is the ground for appeal, it would result in disadvantageous consequences to the plaintiffs to reverse the judgment of the court below in this case, which only the plaintiffs appealed, and thus, it shall maintain

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)