Where the owner, while making a decision of expropriation of land under Article 5 (4) of the former Act on Special Measures for National Security, did not serve a notice of expropriation on the owner who resides in his/her domicile on the register but makes a public notice on the ground that the inmate is unknown, the validity of such decision of expropriation

When the owner makes a decision to expropriate land under Article 5 (4) of the former Act on Special Measures for National Information and Article 5 (4) of the Act on Special Measures for Expropriation and Use of Land within the Mobilization Area under Article 5 (4) of the Act on Special Measures for National Information and when the owner was living in his/her domicile on the register, he/she unilaterally deprived the owner of an opportunity for objection to the decision to expropriate the land by unilaterally depositing the compensation money without delivering the notification of expropriation to the owner.

Article 5(4) of the former Act on Special Measures for National Security (repealed by Act No. 2312, Dec. 27, 1971; Act No. 3470, Dec. 17, 1981); Article 29 and Article 31 of the Decree on Special Measures for National Security concerning Expropriation and Use of Land in Areas Subject to Mobilization under Article 5(4) of the Act on Special Measures for National Security;

Supreme Court Decision 88Da22800 Decided September 26, 1989 (Gong1989, 1554), Supreme Court Decision 94Da54160 Decided September 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3519), Supreme Court Decision 96Da38049 Decided December 23, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 519)

Plaintiff (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 92Na16620 delivered on May 24, 1995

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below unilaterally accepted the above 11 forest and field 1 forest ( Address 1 omitted) which the defendant had originally owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter the real estate of this case) under Article 5 (4) of the former Act on Special Measures for National Security and Article 5 (4) of the Act on Special Measures for National Security, and the Ordinance on Special Measures for Expropriation and Use of Land within the area subject to mobilization on National Security, and subsequently completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant under Article 10907 of the Seoul Civil District Court receipt Registry of Seocheon District Court on December 3, 1979. The plaintiff's address was entered in the register of the real estate of this case as Gyeonggi ( Address 2 omitted) and transferred the above real estate to the plaintiff on March 10, 1985 ( Address 3 omitted), and determined that the defendant, on June 25, 197, without notifying the plaintiff of the expropriation of the above real estate under the name of the above 3rd Government Deposit of this case, notified the plaintiff 1010.

In light of the records, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff withdrawn the allegation that the Plaintiff omitted the delivery of the notice of acceptance as the grounds for invalidation of the land expropriation of this case. Therefore, the allegation that the lower court erred in violation of the principle of pleading is without merit on the premise that the Plaintiff withdrawn the said assertion.

In addition, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and it cannot be deemed that there were errors such as misconception of facts due to insufficient deliberation as pointed out, and the grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)