(a) Where there is a business agent for consultation procedures on expropriation, the other party to the request for adjudication under Article 25-3 of the Land Expropriation Act;

(b) Where it is evident that the consultation on expropriation has no possibility, whether a claim for adjudication may be filed before the consultation period expires, and in such cases, the starting point of the two-month period as provided for in Article 25-3 (2) of the same Act;

(a) If there is a person acting on behalf of a project operator for the procedures for consultations on land expropriation, a request for adjudication may also be submitted to the person acting on behalf of the project operator, except in extenuating circumstances;

(b) In cases where the period of the consultation on expropriation has been determined but it is obvious that there is no possibility of the consultation, there is no need to allow the business operator or his/her business agent to wait until the period of the consultation expires. Thus, even before the expiration of the consultation period, a claim for adjudication may be filed against the business operator or his/her business agent. In such cases, the two-month period under Article 25-3 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act shall be calculated from the expiry date of the consultation period.

Article 25-3 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 15-2(1)1 and Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Central Land Tribunal and one other Defendants, the defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu27411 delivered on December 11, 1992

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs regarding delayed charges under Article 25-3 of the Land Expropriation Act shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 25-3 (3) of the Land Expropriation Act provides that when an agreement on land expropriation has not been reached, owners of land and persons concerned may promptly file an application for adjudication in writing pursuant to the Presidential Decree. Article 16-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act provides that a person who intends to file an application for adjudication shall submit a written application for adjudication stating the prescribed matters to a public project operator after the period of consultation expires. If a person who acts on behalf of a public project operator is to submit it by mail, he/she shall be deemed to be able to submit a written application for adjudication in writing to the public project operator unless there are special circumstances. Even if the period of consultation on expropriation has been determined, it shall be deemed that a person who acts on behalf of the public project operator can submit it to the public project operator unless there is a separate person who acts on behalf of the public project operator, and even if the period of consultation on expropriation has been determined, it is apparent that there is no possibility that the consultation is concluded as a result of the consultation between the parties until the expiration of the consultation period.

If the head of Yangcheon-gu, Yangcheon-gu, as stated in the lower court’s statement on October 17, 1992 (record 326 pages), vicariously performed the work of the land expropriation consultation procedure of the Defendant Corporation, barring special circumstances, such as that the Defendant Corporation or the head of Yangcheon-gu, knew the landowner, etc. that he/she was not entitled to receive a request for adjudication due to the failure to reach an agreement, the request for adjudication following the failure to reach an agreement shall be deemed to have been submitted to the Defendant Corporation, a business operator, through the head of Yangcheon-gu, through the head of Yangcheon-gu, by accepting the request for adjudication following the failure

The court below rejected the plaintiff et al.'s claim for additional dues on July 5, 1989 on the premise that the head of Yangcheon-gu has no authority to receive the claim for the adjudication of this case without deliberating on the existence of the above special circumstances, and that the plaintiff 1 shall submit the claim for the adjudication of this case to the public project operator after the consultation period has elapsed, and that the plaintiff 1 (the plaintiff 2 already no land owner at the time when the plaintiff 1 requested the adjudication by receiving a part of the land of this case from the plaintiff 1 on December 30, 1989) did not meet the requirements for the payment of additional dues, and thus, the court below rejected the claim for the adjudication of late payment of additional dues on the premise that such measures do not meet the requirements for the payment of additional dues, and there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the claim for the adjudication as a requirement for the payment of additional dues, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part against the plaintiffs regarding the late payment penalty under Article 25-3 of the Land Expropriation Act shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)