The receipt of deposited land expropriation compensation and the filing of an objection against the adjudication filed by the landowner without reservation of the objection

Any landowner who has received without reservation any objection to the land expropriation compensation deposited by public project operators by the adjudication of the Land Tribunal shall be deemed to have succeeded to the said adjudication even if he/she has raised an objection to such adjudication, and have received it in accordance with the purport of the deposit.

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

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu492 Delivered on February 10, 1981

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee)

Attorney Yang Jong-hoon, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Attorney Yang Sung-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu178 delivered on July 22, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

1. As to No. 1:

In case where a public project operator who expropriates land has deposited the compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Expropriation Committee for the reasons under Article 61 (1) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act, the deposit shall be deemed to be a deposit for the payment of compensation. Thus, if the victim, who is the landowner, received the deposit without reservation of any objection against the deposit public official, even if he has raised an objection against the decision, the landowner shall be deemed to have received the deposit money in accordance with the purport of the deposit (see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu492 delivered on February 10, 1981). Accordingly, in the same purport, the court below rejected the decision of the court below as a compensation for the expropriation of the land owned by the plaintiff clan, and the court below deposited the amount of the decision of the land Land Expropriation Committee in accordance with Article 61 (1) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act with the compensation for the expropriation of the land owned by the plaintiff clan, and the non-party's receipt of the deposit money without reservation against the deposit public official on behalf of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's objection against the above non-party's acceptance of the money of this case is justified.

2. As to No. 2:

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff clan appointed the non-party as representative of April 28, 1979, and granted the plaintiff the right to exercise all ownership rights including the submission of an objection and management following the completion of the land expropriation procedure of this case on the real estate of this case as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the Dong resigned from the representative of the plaintiff clan on December 12, 1979. After that, on January 28, 1980, the plaintiff's act as the representative of the plaintiff clan was done as the representative of the plaintiff clan, he requested the deposit public official to pay the above deposit money with a letter of interest on the ground that he lost the letter of appointment and deposit notice. The above non-party was trusted as the legitimate representative of the plaintiff clan by the above resolution, and the fact-finding of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-party's right to represent the plaintiff, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-party's right to represent's expiration of representation.

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.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young