[1] In a case where a provisional attachment is executed for the land to be expropriated, whether the provisional attachment becomes extinct due to the expropriation of the land (affirmative), and whether the provisional attachment of the land to be expropriated has become effective as a matter of course by transferring it to the right to claim the compensation for expropriation (negative)

[2] Whether Article 67 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act, which provides for the termination of all legal restrictions on the land due to the expropriation and the original acquisition of the full ownership of the land, infringes on the right to equality under the Constitution (negative)

[1] According to Article 67 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act, a public project operator shall acquire the ownership on the date of expropriation of the land and terminate other rights to the land, and the provisional attachment shall become null and void due to the original acquisition of the ownership of the land by the project operator due to the expropriation of the land, even if the provisional attachment is executed on the land to be expropriated, and it shall not be deemed that the provisional attachment of the land is transferred to the right to claim the compensation

[2] It is reasonable that the ownership acquired by a prisoner in the land expropriation due to public necessity should be the complete ownership of real rights and all other legal restrictions extinguished to the public interest. Even if the effect of provisional attachment execution on the land is lost due to the land expropriation pursuant to Article 67(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, it is possible to take a preservation procedure again after the land expropriation. Thus, it cannot be said that the above provision infringes on the right of equality under the Constitution on the ground that a person who fails to take such preservation procedure and a person who takes the preservation procedure are not treated equally.

[1] Articles 61 and 67(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 187 of the Civil Act, Article 696 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 67(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 11 of the Constitution

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Changwon District Court Decision 98Na5030 delivered on October 8, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 67 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act, a business operator shall acquire the ownership of the land on the date of expropriation and terminate other rights to the land, and even if provisional seizure is executed on the land to be expropriated, the provisional seizure shall become null and void due to the original acquisition of the ownership by the business operator due to the expropriation of the land, and it shall not be deemed that the provisional seizure on the land shall become null and void as a matter of course, and it shall not be deemed that the provisional seizure on the land shall be transferred to the right to claim the compensation for expropriation, and

In addition, it is reasonable that the ownership acquired by a prisoner in the land expropriation due to public necessity should be the complete ownership of real rights and all other legal restrictions extinguished to the public interest. Even if the execution of provisional seizure on the land loses its effect due to the land expropriation under the provisions of the Land Expropriation Act, it may take the preservation procedure again after the land expropriation. Thus, the above provision does not infringe the right of equality under the Constitution on the ground that the person who fails to take such preservation procedure and the person who takes the preservation procedure are not treated equally.

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)