(a) Where the contractor of the housing site development project is entitled to deposit compensation;

(b) Validity of the deposit of compensation made before serving the original written adjudication of land expropriation;

(c) Validity of service of the original written adjudication made after a considerable period has elapsed since the land expropriation adjudication was made;

(d) The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the method of service of the original written adjudication of land expropriation was wrong;

A. If the cadastral record, such as the register and the land cadastre, is entirely destroyed due to the incident of June 25, and the land cadastre was newly restored thereafter, but there was a ruling of expropriation that makes the recipient unexploded and remains unregistered without restoring the ownership, it is reasonable to deem that the operator of the housing site development project could not know the person entitled to the compensation without negligence. Therefore, the compensation may be deposited pursuant to Article 61(2)2 of the Land Expropriation Act.

(b) The deposit of compensation made by the public project operator before the original written adjudication of land expropriation is legally served on the inmate is effective if it was made before the expropriation is made.

(c) The service cannot be deemed as null and void only on the ground that the service was made after a considerable period has elapsed since the land expropriation ruling was made.

(d) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the lawful service by public notice on the original copy of a written adjudication of land expropriation in violation of Article 7(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree

(b)Paragraph 2 of Article 61 of the Land Expropriation Act; article 43 of the Land Expropriation Act; article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act; article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act

(a) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9085 delivered on June 13, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2407). Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9422 delivered on December 14, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 379)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Korea Land Development Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na13802 delivered on February 8, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

As determined by the court below, if the register and the cadastral record on the real estate of this case were all destroyed due to the incident of 6.25 incidents, and if the land cadastre was newly restored, but the ownership shortage remains unregistered and there was a ruling of expropriation that makes it impossible to confirm the inmate, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant, who is the executor of the housing site development project of this case, was unable to know the person entitled to the compensation without any negligence. Thus, the compensation can be deposited pursuant to Article 61(2)2 of the Land Expropriation Act.

On the other hand, according to the records, the plaintiff's assertion that the part on the deposit of this case was altered shall be rejected, and the court below's decision to accept a new deposit on August 10, 1990 shall be justified and it shall not be required to comply with the correction procedure in making a new decision to accept a deposit of this case.

In addition, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's deposit of compensation made before the original written adjudication of confinement is delivered to the inmate shall not be effective if it is made before the expropriation is made. In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the deposit made by the defendant is valid shall be justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding the legal principles on ownership or deposit as in the theory of lawsuit, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to satisfy the reasons therefor.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the Central Land Tribunal, which accepted the real estate of this case, served the landowner by public notice on the original copy of the written ruling, has no validity due to the lack of the requirements of service by public notice.

In addition, since the original written ruling is delivered by the competent Land Tribunal rather than by the defendant, who is the business operator, the original written ruling is not served by the defendant, and there is no room for application of Article 14 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, which is a provision concerning the case where the operator of the housing site development project serves documents by public notice, and the service is made after a considerable period has elapsed after the ruling of expropriation. The case

However, according to Article 7 (2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act, when the Land Tribunal intends to serve by public notice, it shall send documents to be served to the head of the Gu (limited to the Si in which the Gu is established)/Si/Gun having the land to which the land to be expropriated exists, and the head of the Gu/Si/Gun having received the documents shall post a copy on the bulletin board of the Gu/Si/Gun. According to the evidence No. 3-3 of this case, at the time when the Central Land Tribunal intends to serve the original copy of the written adjudication on expropriation of this case to the owner of the land, it is evident that the real estate of this case is located in the area of the Gu/Si/Gun at the time of Sungnam-si. Thus, in serving by public notice the authentic copy of the written adjudication on expropriation of this case, it shall be sent to the head of the Gu/Si/Gun and it shall be correct to determine that the service by public notice was lawfully made even if the original copy of the written adjudication was sent to the

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)