A. The case that the court below reversed the judgment of the court of final appeal and declared the termination of the lawsuit on the grounds that the part of the judgment below prior to remand was erroneous and remanded.

(b) The probative value of a protocol of pleading concerning the closing of argument or the protection of parties;

(c) Where part of the land subject to an original alteration of the expropriation project plan becomes unnecessary after the adjudication of land expropriation is made (negative)

A. The case that the court below reversed the judgment of the court of final appeal and declared the termination of the lawsuit on the ground that the plaintiff did not file an appeal against the incineration portion of the judgment of the court below before remand and the decision of the court below became final and conclusive on the date of expiration of the appeal.

B. The contents of the protocol of pleading in which the pleading is written as having been closed shall be presumed to be true in view of the nature of the protocol of pleading, and the assertion that the party concerned was not represented on the date may be proved only by the entries in the protocol of pleading.

C. Even if part of the land was not necessary for the expropriation project due to a change in the original expropriation project plan, this is merely a reduction in the scope of compensation for losses as a result of the reduction in the target of expropriation, and if the above urban planning was not changed at the time of the ruling, the illegality of administrative disposition is determined as at the time of the disposition. Thus, the ruling on objection is not unlawful since urban planning was changed after the ruling on objection.

A. Articles 404, 407(b), 142, 143, and 147(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act (general administrative disposition), Article 75 of the Land Expropriation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu89 delivered on June 22, 1982 (Gong1982,709). Supreme Court Decision 80Da1586,1587 delivered on September 24, 1980 (Gong1980,1325) 81Da817 delivered on June 8, 1982 (Gong1982,637) (Gong1982,637). Supreme Court Decision 80Nu412 delivered on December 8, 1981 (Gong1982,144)

Plaintiff

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and the Defendant joining the Defendant, Hongk Law Firm, Attorney Kim Jong-Un, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu15729 delivered on May 23, 1990

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3256 Decided November 14, 1989

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu9284 decided May 4, 1989

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Of the instant claims, the Defendant’s lawsuit on the claim seeking revocation of the land expropriation ruling against the Plaintiff on February 25, 1986 was terminated on June 2, 1989, which was the expiration date of the Plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment of the lower court prior to the instant case’s remand.

Of the judgment below, the part of the claim for cancellation of the objection against the land expropriation ruling is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined ex officio prior to the determination.

According to the records, the court below rejected the defendant's claim seeking cancellation of the land expropriation ruling as of February 25, 1986 against the plaintiff, among the plaintiff's claim, on the ground that it is unlawful, and the plaintiff's claim seeking cancellation of the ruling as of July 15, 1988 was justified. The plaintiff did not make an appeal as to the above rejection part, and only the defendant appealed as to the cancellation of the ruling as to the above rejection part, and it is obvious that the plaintiff reversed the judgment below before remand and remanded to the party member

Therefore, among the plaintiff's claim of this case, the part concerning the ruling of acceptance on February 25, 1986 of the above judgment of the court below prior to the remanding of this case was confirmed on June 3, 198 as the plaintiff left on June 2, 1989, which was obvious in the record that it was the expiration date of the appeal against the above judgment of the court below, and became final and conclusive on June 2, 1989. Thus, the court below cannot make a decision on this part after remanding of this case. Nevertheless, since the court below erred in its deliberation and determination on this part, this part cannot be reversed, and as to this part, it shall be declared that the lawsuit on this part was terminated as above by the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The issue is that the court below's argument was not closed on April 11, 1990, and the pleading continued on May 9, 199, and the procedure was not lawfully conducted and supported because the court did not express the parties on the date of May 9, 190. Accordingly, according to the 8th hearing protocol of the court below on April 11, 1990, the argument is stated as the conclusion of the pleading on the same date, and the pleading protocol of the court below on April 11, 1990 should be presumed to be true in its nature, and there are no other materials to determine the contents of the pleading. Thus, the argument that the parties did not appear on May 9, 190, 190, is without merit, and it can be proved only by the statement on the method of pleading, and according to the statement on the same hearing protocol of the court below on May 9, 1990, the date was the date of adjudication, but the party's name was on the same date, and the proceedings were lawfully stated on May 13, 19, 19.

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, that the urban planning, which served as the basis for acceptance, was modified, and the judgment of the court below was rejected as to the allegation that the adjudication was unlawful

According to the records, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City's decision on the initial urban planning and the approval of the same project (as publicly notified in Seoul City Notice 568), among the land owned by the Plaintiff, was made a decision to expropriate the land as a site for the road with a large of 105 square meters and 105 square meters and 30 square meters wide from among the land owned by the Plaintiff. After the decision of this case, on November 17, 1988, Seoul Special Metropolitan City's urban planning as to the land of this case was changed on November 17, 198, before the closing of the argument of this case, and 86 square meters among the land of this case was excluded from the road site, and accordingly, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City was recognized to have redeemed this part, and on the other hand, it is obvious that the plaintiff changed the urban planning that became the basis for the land expropriation of this case, and therefore the judgment of this case was unlawful, according to the records, the court below did not make a decision on the above assertion.

However, even if part of the land was not necessary for the expropriation project due to a change in the original expropriation project plan, this is merely a reduction in the scope of compensation for losses as a result of the reduction in the target of expropriation, and the decision of this case was made at the time of the decision of this case, and the determination of illegality of administrative disposition was made at the time of the decision of this case. Therefore, the decision of this case does not affect the conclusion of the decision, since the urban planning was changed after the decision of this case. Therefore, the decision of the court below is without merit.

4. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, as to the ground of appeal No. 2 on the plaintiff's petition as to relocation measures or depreciation of the remaining land

According to each of the statements in the complaint lawfully stated in the court below, the brief dated November 8, 198, and the preparatory brief dated March 23, 1989, the plaintiff did not take measures for the relocation of the plaintiff, and part of the land was not compensated for damage to the value decline of the remaining land expropriated. Thus, the above argument that the ruling was unlawful. It is obvious that it is the purport of disputing not only as a illegal ground for the ruling of acceptance but also as an illegal ground for the ruling of acceptance, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that the plaintiff asserted the above argument only as an illegal ground for the ruling of acceptance. Accordingly, even though the court below should have judged the above argument, the court below failed to make a decision, and it is likely to affect the conclusion of the judgment, which points this out is reasonable.

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the adjudication of expropriation is reversed, and the lawsuit on this part is terminated as seen earlier, and the part concerning the objection to the adjudication of expropriation of the land of this case among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)