(2) The effect of the expropriation when the public project operator cannot, without his negligence, confirm the inmate.

Since it violates the purpose of the Act to waste time and expenses more than necessary for the discovery of a person with a true right to land expropriation, if public project operators are unable to determine the person without any negligence, the person with a right in form shall be lawful even if the person with a right to land expropriation is confirmed, and the person shall acquire the person with a right to land clearly.

Article 23 of the Land Expropriation Act

Bosong Li Libi

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District Court (78Ga1535) in the first instance trial

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The extension part of the main claim and the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff in the trial is dismissed, respectively.

3. Costs of appeal and costs of lawsuit concerning claims added by the trial court shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is the main claim (in addition to the trial court), and the defendant is the defendant Kim Jong-do's decision that the defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to land expropriation on March 8, 197 of the same year, and the judgment of the court below is revoked as the preliminary claim (extension in the trial) with regard to the second to 27 square meters of Jongno-gu 294-2 to 27 square meters in Seoul, Jongno-gu Kim Jong-do.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 7,728,00 with 5 percent per annum from the day following the service of the case to the day after full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit were assessed against the defendant in the first and second trials.

1. There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the registration of ownership transfer has been made in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate in this case"), and the fact that the defendant accepted the real estate in this case for the construction of a road on March 8, 197, and paid the compensation of KRW 7,728,000 to the defendant and the defendant Kim North Korean who registered as the owner on the registry of the real estate in this case at

2. The plaintiff was the cause of the claim of this case, and the real estate was owned by the non-party Kim Jong-sik. The plaintiff purchased this case from Dong Jae-in and filed a lawsuit for the transfer of ownership against Dong Jong-ok as Seoul Civil District Court 73 Ma3343, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff became final and conclusive, which became the plaintiff's ownership. Thus, the above registration is null and void since the defendant Park Jong-ok purchased two documents without purchasing the real estate from the above Kim Jong-ok and completed the transfer of ownership under his own name. Based on this, the above registration is also null and void, and although the above Kim Jong-tae was not the real owner of the real estate in this case, the defendant misleads the plaintiff as the real owner of the real estate in this case, and paid 7,728,000 won to the compensation, and made the transfer of ownership for this case on the ground of land expropriation, but it is not the real owner of the above real real estate and the real owner of the real real estate in this case, which is not the owner of this case.

3. Therefore, even according to the plaintiff's assertion itself, since it is apparent that the plaintiff did not complete the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate in this case under the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff still could not acquire the ownership of the real estate. In addition, in light of the provisions of Articles 23, 61, and 64 of the Land Expropriation Act and the purpose of the same Act, it violates the purpose of the Act to waste time and expenses more than necessary for finding the true right holder in the case of land expropriation. Thus, if the public project operator cannot, without his own negligence, determine the person under the form as the prisoner, the right holder is legitimate even if he can be determined as the person under the form, and the effect of the expropriation should be determined as the owner of the object, and it is reasonable to interpret that the public project operator should acquire the ownership of the object completely and clearly, at the same time, the ownership of the real estate should be acquired by the owner under the premise that the above administrative disposition is legitimate, such as unjust enrichment, even if the right holder is found, and therefore, it cannot be said that the market price of the defendant's real estate is the defendant.

4. In the same way, the expropriation procedure for the real estate in this case at Defendant Si is automatically null and void, and the plaintiff's main claim in this case and the conjunctive claim on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of the real estate in this case shall be dismissed because all of the plaintiff's main claim in this case and the conjunctive claim are without merit. Thus, the judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim for the payment of 5,00,000 won as part of the above conjunctive claim is just in conclusion with the party members and there are no grounds for appeal by the plaintiff. Thus, the main claim added to the trial at the time of the trial and the expansion of the conjunctive claim (2,728,00 won) are all without merit, and each of the costs of the lawsuit are dismissed, and all of the costs of the lawsuit are to be borne to the plaintiff who is the

Judges Lee Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)