Where a road management authority, etc. enters another's land for survey prior to the determination of a road zone, its legal nature (i.e., a part of the procedure for determination of a road zone, and a separate expropriation independent of such procedure), and whether the decision of a road zone is unlawful on the ground that it did not notify

Article 48(1) and (2) of the Road Act provides that a road management authority, etc. may access a third party’s land if it is necessary for construction works, survey, measurement, or maintenance of a road, and that the person in possession of another’s land shall be notified in advance of access to the third party’s land prior to the determination of a road zone. The access to another’s land for survey, etc. prior to the determination of a road zone does not constitute a part of the procedure for determination of a road zone, but is an independent public expropriation. The road management authority’s failure to notify prior to the determination of a road zone the occupant of the access to another’s land for survey, etc. cannot be deemed unlawful, and Article 10(1) and (2) of the Land Survey Act, which provides for prior notification obligation to the occupant of the relevant land prior to the determination of a

Articles 25, 48(1) and (2), and 49-2 of the Road Act; Article 16 of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 10(1) and (2) of the Land Survey Act

The clans of the Macong-gun of a trade name;

The Regional Construction and Management Administration

Gwangju High Court Decision 99Nu669 delivered on January 13, 2000

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

The court below acknowledged that the Defendant’s construction project to expand and pack the sub-west-west portion among the 30 lines of the national highways around January 1996 (U.S.-T.), completed the survey and design of the routes, and completed the route explanation meetings, environmental impact assessment, etc. against local residents, etc., and notified the decision of the road zone where the land of the instant four parcels owned by the Plaintiff clan was incorporated into the road zone in the middle three-dimensional intersection as of August 8, 1998 under the notification No. 1998-150 of August 8, 1998, and announced the detailed items of land to be incorporated into the construction section under the notification No. 1998-174 of September 18, 198; however, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff in advance of the survey for the above road zone; and determined that the above prior notification decision by the Defendant was not unlawful in the road zone.

Article 48(1) and (2) of the Road Act provides that a road management authority, etc. may access a third party’s land if it is necessary for construction works, survey, measurement, or maintenance of a road, and that the person in possession of another’s land shall be notified in advance of access to the third party’s land prior to the determination of a road zone. The access to another’s land for the purpose of survey, etc. prior to the determination of a road zone does not constitute a part of the procedure for determination of a road zone, but is a separate public expropriation. The road management authority’s failure to notify prior to the determination of a road zone to the occupant of another’s land for the purpose of survey, etc. cannot be deemed unlawful, and Article 10(1) and (2) of the Land Survey Act, which provides for prior notification obligation to the occupant of the land prior to the determination of

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below is just in holding that the decision of the road zone of this case is not unlawful on the ground that the defendant did not notify the plaintiff clan of the access to the land of this case prior to the determination of the road zone in advance (it cannot be deemed that the decision of the road zone is unlawful on the ground that the defendant measured and designed the road zone or entered into a contract on road works with the constructor prior to the determination of the road zone). There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the decision of the road zone, Article 48 (2) of the Road Act, Article 10 (

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 Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)