(a) The effects of receiving the money deposited for land expropriation compensation, which has not been withheld during the filing of an objection and the continuation of a lawsuit;

(b) The other party who has expressed his/her intention of reservation concerning the receipt of deposited land expropriation compensation;

A. In case where public project operators deposited land expropriation compensation adjudicated by the Land Expropriation Committee pursuant to Article 61 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act, such deposit is for the performance of the obligation to pay compensation for land expropriation borne by public project operators to land owners, and there is no difference between the deposit for repayment and the deposit for payment under the Civil Act. Thus, if a land owner received the deposit without reservation of any objection, the land owner shall be deemed to have received the compensation according to the purport of the deposit by taking over the adjudication of the Land Expropriation Committee. Thus, even though the land owner is in the process of filing a lawsuit against the said adjudication or filing a lawsuit, if he receives the deposit without expressing his intention of reservation such as the receipt of a part of the compensation during the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed to have received the full amount of compensation in accordance with the purport of the deposit by taking over the previous adjudication and taking over the said adjudication. The same applies to the case where it cannot be deemed that the landowner has expressed his intent to receive the deposit.

B. The intent of the reservation on the receipt of deposited land expropriation is to prevent the extinction of the claim in accordance with the purport of the deposit by clarifying that the receipt of the deposited land expropriation compensation is not the receipt of the deposit by taking advantage of the deposit cause. Thus, the other party to the expression of intent does not necessarily need to be limited to the deposited public official, and it is also necessary to express his/her intent to keep the objection against the company who is the person liable to pay the compensation. However, in this case, there is no evidence to recognize that there is no person who is the authority to receive the declaration of intent to receive the deposit on behalf of the Minister, who is the person liable to pay the compensation, and the fact that the plaintiff is a part of the receipt of the compensation before receiving the deposit is difficult to readily conclude that there was an expression of intent to keep the objection against the public official.

(a)Article 61(2)1 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 487 of the Civil Act;

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant after the fact-finding

Central Land Tribunal (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu626 delivered on March 3, 1982

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant accepted each of the land and its ground of this case owned by the plaintiffs as compensation 157,205,850 won in order to implement a new site development project for the National Hoho Hospital, which was implemented by the original Minister as an enterprise owner, and the original Minister deposited the amount of the above acceptance decision. The plaintiffs confirmed that the plaintiff received the entire deposit without any objection to the public official on May 25, 1980 and July 5 of the same year without having expressed his/her intention of reservation. Since the plaintiffs received the above deposit and received the above acceptance decision, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

In other words, the plaintiffs filed an objection against the above expropriation ruling and filed an objection, and thereafter they filed no withdrawal, and thereafter they filed an appeal to exclude each of the lands of this case and its ground objects from the expropriation, or to provide fair compensation on the related summary. The plaintiffs clearly state that partial receipt of compensation is made to the non-party, etc. who is the director in charge of land expropriation at the above National Cemetery, and receive the deposit money, and according to Articles 61, 65, 67 (1) and 76 of the Land Expropriation Act and Articles 67 (1) and 76 of the Land Expropriation Act, public project operators shall pay or deposit the compensation by the time of expropriation or use determined by the competent Land Expropriation Committee, and the objection against the above expropriation ruling shall not be suspended from the progress of the project and the expropriation or use of the land at the time of the expropriation. Since in the adjudication on the objection, even if the original compensation amount can be received even if the plaintiffs received in light of the fact that the plaintiffs' expression of intention to receive the deposit and the compensation money can not be seen as being paid by the above public officials.

2. However, in a case where a public project operator deposits land expropriation compensation adjudicated by the Land Expropriation Committee pursuant to Article 61(2)1 of the Land Expropriation Act, the deposit is for the performance of the obligation to pay compensation for land expropriation borne by the public project operator to the landowner, and there is no difference between the deposit for repayment under the Civil Act and the deposit for land expropriation. Therefore, if a landowner receives any objection without reservation, it is reasonable to deem that the landowner has received the compensation in return for the adjudication of the Land Expropriation Committee, and thus, the obligation to pay the compensation for the public project operator is extinguished finally and conclusively

Even if a landowner files an objection or files a lawsuit against the above adjudication, unless he/she receives the deposit without expressing his/her intention of reservation, such as partial receipt of compensation, during the litigation, it cannot be deemed that he/she has received the full amount of compensation in accordance with the purport of the deposit by withdrawing the previous intention of refusal of receipt and taking over the adjudication. The same applies likewise, and the same cannot be deemed as having expressed his/her intention of reservation as to the receipt of deposit solely on the fact that the objection or lawsuit is pending at the

3. Thus, the court below's determination that in this case where the objection to the adjudication is pending on the premise that the deposit and receipt of the adjudication compensation under the Land Expropriation Act are different from the deposit and receipt of the payment under the Civil Act, it cannot be viewed as a return to the adjudication even if it receives the deposit without any expression of reservation, cannot be viewed as a violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the deposit of the adjudication compensation under the Land Expropriation Act and the effect of the receipt thereof.

4. However, it is intended to prevent the effectiveness of the extinguishment of a claim in accordance with the purport of the deposit by clarifying that the declaration of intent of reservation as to receipt of deposit money is not a receipt of deposit money by taking over the cause of deposit, and thus, the other party to the declaration of intention does not necessarily need to be limited to the deposit public official, and it is also necessary to express his/her intent of reservation against the contractor, who is the person liable for compensation. As to this point, the view that the other party to the declaration of intent of reservation as to receipt of deposit money in the previous precedents of the party to the previous precedents, which stated that the other party to the declaration

Therefore, in this case, it is examined whether the plaintiff expressed his/her intention to receive the deposit money to the original Minister, who is a business operator, and the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff is the non-party, etc., who is the chief in charge of land expropriation of the National Cemetery prior to the receipt of the deposit money. However, according to the context before and after the judgment of the original court, the court below determined that the plaintiff expressed his/her intention to receive the deposit money and rejected the defendant's main safety defense), and there is no ground to recognize that the non-party, who is the director of the National Hoho Hospital, is the person who is the director of the National Hoho Hospital, as the business operator of this case, is the person who is authorized to receive the deposit money for the original Minister. Thus, unless it is recognized that the above authority to receive the deposit exists, it is difficult to conclude that the above recognition alone expressed his/her intention to receive the deposit against the business operator

5. Ultimately, the lower judgment cannot be maintained as it is, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, without examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant litigation performers and other grounds of appeal by Defendant litigation attorneys, and reversed the lower judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young, Kim So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young