2010 Ghana9248 Land Assignment, etc.

Development of Corporation

Chuncheon-si Dong

Representative Director Kim

Attorney Park Jae-won, Counsel for the defendant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 10 others

Partnership Company Industry

Chuncheon Myeongcheon-si Li

Representative Member

Law Firm Han-han, Attorney Han-soo

Attorney Park Jong-soo et al.

November 27, 2012

December 11, 2012

1. The Defendant received KRW 37,445,418 from the Plaintiff simultaneously with the Plaintiff’s payment:

(a) Attached 2,3,44 square meters in order of 8,78 square meters in the ship which connects each point of 2,3,4,2 in the order of 8,78 square meters, and 2 meters in the same column (c) part of the ship which connects each point of 8,9,10,14,8; 100 square meters in the same 7,8,14,13, and 7; 15,000 square meters in order of 3,000, 44,000, 3,000 and 4,000, 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 and 4,000,000 and 3,000,000 and 4,000,000,000 and 3,000,000,000,000 and 4,000,000,00

B. Sincheon-si, Gyeongcheon-si. A series of points in sequence 22 and 306, in the order of each point indicated in the attached Table 222 and 306, among the 752 square meters of a road, each point in series 240,228, among the said 8,778 square meters of an appraisal map, each point in series 365 through 373, and 293, the same appraisal map, each of the two points in series 279, 161, the same appraisal map, each of which is indicated 171,175 square meters, each line and the above Ri - the same appraisal map 179,253 square meters on a line, each of which is located on the 441 square meters of a road, shall be installed to remove and support iron bars, each of which is installed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

4. 19/20 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant shall receive KRW 375,426,00 from the plaintiff at the same time, deliver each land recorded in the register of land in attached Form 1 to the plaintiff, and collect each facility listed in the register of land in attached Form 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s right to land indicated in the attached Table 1

1) On August 28, 2009, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of authorization for an implementation plan for urban planning facility projects pursuant to Articles 30, 32, 88, and 91 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 9442, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) from the Chuncheon mayor, and the Plaintiff was implementing the project for creating a pelppp (many, membership system) from Japan (hereinafter “the instant project”).

2) The plaintiff is a project implementer subject to the disposition to alter the above implementation plan and has not been consulted, and the plaintiff is the largest of the land listed in the attached Table 1 - the land owned by the non-party in Chuncheon City.

- Do governor-owned 1,864 square meters in dry field 3,121 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "riside land" in the same area); this (hereinafter referred to as "general partner and representative member of a limited partnership company"); - Do governor-owned 4,124 square meters in dry field - Do governor- - previous 1,770 square meters in dry field;

L- L - Pursuant to Articles 95 and 96 of the National Land Planning Act, with respect to the expropriation ruling on May 10, 2010 (the date of commencement of expropriation: June 10, 2010) with respect to large 202m, L 96m, L 1, L 456m, L 1m, L 3,13m, L 3,113m, and L 29,950m of Sigsan Forest owned by Kim (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above lands") and the expropriation ruling on May 10, 2010 (the date of commencement of expropriation: June 10, 2010). The compensation was deposited on June 1, 2010.

3) In addition, the Plaintiff obtained permission to occupy and use public waters on February 24, 2010 as to the land owned by the State among the land located in the annexed land list No. 1 for the instant business, which was located on the land owned by the State among the land located in the annexed land list No. 1 - the road 752 square meters and Ri - the road 441 square meters, and obtained permission to use and profit from State property on February 24, 2010. On January 25, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained permission to use and use public waters on the land located in the annexed land for the instant business (hereinafter “the permission to use each of the instant land”). The respective permission period was up to December 31, 2011, and the permission to use and profit from the said State property was extended on December 31, 2014 and on December 31, 2013, respectively.

B. Ownership of facilities listed in the Defendant’s attached list No. 2

The Defendant concluded a loan for use contract with the owner on the land of this case, which is engaged in the interim construction waste disposal business, equipment leasing business, building removal business, etc., and installed each facility listed in the list of second facilities on the ground and used it as the business site.

C. Withdrawal of an application for adjudication on each facility listed in the Plaintiff’s list of second facilities

1) The Plaintiff is subject to adjudication on expropriation - L - L , L , L , L 1

With respect to goods existing on each ground, such as lots, Risan - etc., compensation was paid upon a new ruling to compensate for the relocation cost and the transfer of obstacles.

2) However, the Plaintiff did not consult with the Defendant on each of the facilities listed in the water list of the facilities owned by the Defendant located on the ground of the instant land expropriation ruling, and on February 5, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the Gangwon-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee along with the said land on February 5, 2010. On April 8, 2010, the appraiser’s report that the Defendant did not cooperate with the appraisal agency at the date of appraisal conducted by the Gangwon-do Local Land Expropriation Committee requesting the appraisal agency at the two sites on April 8, 2010, and that the appraisal procedure for the obstacles was not performed on April 15, 2010 and April 20, 2010, each of the above facilities at the local land expropriation committee at Gangwon-do on April 21, 2010, and did not file a judgment on each of the above facilities.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 9, 15 (including each number), and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 9, and 15 (including each number), the result of the on-site verification by this court, the result of the fact inquiry to the local Land Tribunal of Gangwon-do, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land through the adjudication of expropriation, and pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Interest Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Projects Act”), other rights to the said land have ceased to exist on the commencement date of expropriation. As such, the Defendant lost the right to possess and use the said land according to a contract with the civil country against the land for use. In addition, the Plaintiff has the right to possess and use the said land under a contract with the civil country against the land for use, and the Defendant has used it without any title.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, based on the claim for exclusion of disturbance as the owner of the land of this case, seeks removal of the above-ground facilities and delivery of the land to the Defendant, and seek removal of the facilities and delivery of the land against the Defendant on behalf of the Republic of Korea, who holds the right to use the land of this case.

However, the Plaintiff seeks to collect the above land facilities and transfer the land at the same time with the Defendant’s intent to collect the above facilities and transfer the land, which is equivalent to the compensation for the closure of the business due to the relocation of each above land facilities, from the Defendant, and at the same time the Plaintiff seeks to collect the above land facilities and transfer them to the Defendant.

B. Determination as to the collection of ground facilities on the land to be expropriated in the instant case and the claim for land delivery

1) The Plaintiff’s claim for this part cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

A) The Constitution of the Republic of Korea and relevant laws stipulate the principle of compensation for losses.

Article 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea declares the principle of the continued guarantee of property rights by providing that “All citizens’ property rights shall be guaranteed by law, the contents and limitations thereof shall be determined by law,” and Article 23(3) provides that “the expropriation, use or restriction of property rights due to public necessity and compensation therefor shall be governed by law, but shall be paid with due compensation,” and stipulates that the guarantee of loss should be made even in the light of the restriction on property rights due to the necessity of the public interest.”

Article 95(1) of the National Land Planning Act, which is the basis law for which the plaintiff applied for a ruling on the land of this case, provides that "the implementer of an urban planning facility project may expropriate or use the land, buildings or fixtures on the land for the project," and Article 96 provides that the Act on Public Works shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation and use of land and buildings necessary for the project, except as otherwise provided in the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. In this case, if the implementation plan is publicly notified pursuant to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, it shall be deemed

Article 1 of the Public Works Act provides that "for the purpose of promoting public welfare and protecting the right of re-determination properly through the efficient performance of public works," Article 2 provides that "land, etc. to be used in this Act refers to "land, goods and rights", and "interested persons" refers to "persons who hold rights due to a loan of use or lease or any other right other than the ownership of the land, or persons who hold ownership or other right on the land, with respect to the land to be acquired or to be used by the project operator," and then Article 61 provides that "Article 61 provides that "the losses suffered by the landowner or person concerned due to the acquisition or use of the land, etc. necessary for public works shall be compensated by the project operator."

- According to the Public Works Act, a project operator shall pay the full amount of compensation to landowners and persons concerned before commencing the relevant public works (Article 62); the above compensation shall be cash compensation in principle (Article 63); and the cost of relocation or the price of goods for goods, such as buildings, etc. shall be compensated (Article 75); the operating loss that has been closed or suspended due to the public works shall be compensated in consideration of the operating profit and the cost of relocation of the facilities (Article 7); and the project operator must establish relocation measures for factories if a person who has become unable to operate a factory in the relevant area because the factory site is expropriated due to the expropriation of the factory site due to the public works (Article 77); and (Article 78 Section 2). In addition, the project operator shall pay the amount of compensation determined by the competent Land Tribunal pursuant to the Public Works Act by the commencement date of expropriation or use; and in the event of failure to implement the compensation, the adjudication becomes void (Articles 40 and 41).

B) there are procedures and procedures for a ruling under the Public Works Act.

- A project operator authorized in accordance with the Public Works Act shall undergo procedures such as the preparation of land and goods protocols, the publication of a compensation plan and consultation with landowners and persons concerned (Article 26 of the Public Interest Business Act), and where such consultation is not reached, a project operator may seek a new adjudication (Article 28 of the Public Interest Business Act).

- Subsequent to a public notice of project approval in accordance with the Public Works Act, a project operator or an appraisal business operator entrusted with an appraisal for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation for losses may, if necessary, enter the land or goods at issue and conduct a survey or an investigation (Article 27(1) of the said Act), and a soil occupant who interferes with activities of a project operator or appraisal business operator in violation of this Act is subject to criminal punishment (Article 97(2)).

- In the event of an application for adjudication, the Land Tribunal may, if deemed necessary for the investigation and examination of the application, have a project operator, landowner or person concerned attend its meeting to state his opinion or present his opinion or material, and may have an appraiser request an appraisal, attend the meeting of the Land Tribunal to make a statement, or have its staff make an inspection of the actual inspection (Articles 32 and 58 of the above Act). A person who refuses, interferes with, or evades an inspection of the actual inspection by an employee belonging to the Land Tribunal is subject to an administrative fine (Article 99(1)4 of the above Act).

- A project operator shall acquire the ownership of land or goods on the commencement date of expropriation, and other rights to the land or goods thereon shall extinguish at the same time (Article 45 above), and a person who has a right to the land to be expropriated or used or goods thereon shall transfer such land or goods to the project operator or transfer them to the project operator, as soon as the expropriation or use commences (Article 43 above), and if the person performing the obligation fails to implement or is difficult to complete it within the fixed period, the project operator may apply for vicarious execution under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act (Article 89).

- On the other hand, a person who has an objection to the adjudication may raise an objection or institute an administrative litigation (Articles 83 and 85 of the above Act).

C) review in the instant case

In accordance with the National Land Planning Act and the Public Works Act, the fact that the plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with respect to the land subject to the expropriation ruling and deposited the compensation and acquired the ownership thereof is as seen earlier.

However, the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and the Public Works Act shall recognize compulsory expropriation and use right by adjudication in cases where there is a need to restrict individual's right of representation for public works, and in such cases, sufficient compensation should be made, and the relevant provisions that can be made in detail are also stated above.

In this case, when the plaintiff filed an application for adjudication on the defendant's industrial facilities of a large size on the ground of the land of this case, but the defendant did not permit the appraiser's access, the plaintiff immediately acquired the ownership of the land of this case for prompt implementation of the project following the date by requesting the implementation of the remaining procedures without withdrawing the application for adjudication on the land of this case, and then seeking the removal of the facilities against the defendant as the owner of the land of this case. However, the defendant is a person who owns various facilities on the ground of the land of this case and operates an interim construction waste disposal business, etc., and is in the position of a related party under the Public Works Act. The plaintiff's claim for removal of interference cannot be permitted as a claim against the Constitution of Korea, the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and the Public Works Act, as seen earlier, guaranteeing the defendant's right to receive adequate compensation for losses for the plaintiff's public works.

2) On this issue, the Plaintiff asserts that the adjudication on the facilities owned by the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant land expropriation ruling cannot be made due to the disturbance of the Defendant, and that the criminal punishment provision or the provision of vicarious execution under the Public Works Act is not practically effective, and that in this case, the Plaintiff sought the removal of facilities and the approval of land by simultaneously performing the compensation for the removal of the facilities caused by the intentional relocation of the facilities, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case should not be permissible against the purport of the Constitution

However, the Public Works Act, which the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case, stipulates that not only the owner of the land, but also the owner of the obstacles, such as the Defendant, shall compensate for the losses incurred by the owner of the land, prior to the acquisition of the ownership of the land through such a ruling. Moreover, as seen earlier, the Act provides various procedural regulations to ensure that the public works can be carried out even if the interested parties do not comply with the appraisal balance. In addition, only when the procedure is faithfully implemented, the legitimacy of the restriction on the ownership for the public works can be secured, but also the other party who suffers from the losses can be compensated for his legitimate losses through filing an objection or filing a lawsuit within the procedure.

Therefore, even though the defendant did not cooperate in the appraisal procedure conducted by the plaintiff in accordance with the plaintiff's application for adjudication, and the plaintiff filed an application for appraisal of closure of the defendant's business in this case to the effect that the depreciation amount would be provided simultaneously with the collection of the defendant's facilities, it is deemed that the plaintiff's claim of this case, which did not follow the above compensation procedure, cannot be accepted, is consistent with the Constitution that guarantees the people's property right and exceptionally recognizes the limitation of expropriation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

C. Determination as to the removal of ground facilities on the instant permitted land use and request for land delivery

1) According to the results of each appraisal by the Plaintiff, - 1 to be indicated on the same 3-line, 4-1 to be indicated on the same 3-line, 5-1 to be indicated on the same 4-line, 3-1 to be indicated on the 5-line, 4-1 to be indicated on the 5-line, 3-1 to be indicated on each 4-4 to be indicated on the same 3-line, 3-1 to be indicated on the 5-line, 4-1 to be indicated on each 4-4 to be indicated on the 5-line, 3-1 to be indicated on the 5-line, 3-1 to be indicated on the 5-line, 4-1 to be indicated on each 4-line, 3-1 to be indicated on the 5-line, 4-1 to be indicated on the 5-line, 3-4 to be indicated on each 4-line, 3-1 to be connected each 2-15, 17, 20-17

However, in order to preserve the right, a person who holds the right to use the land in accordance with the permission for use and profit-making of state property and the permission for occupation and use and use of public waters can exercise the right to claim for exclusion of disturbance against illegal occupant by the State, which is the owner of the land, on behalf of the illegal occupant, and in such a case, he/she may request the illegal occupant to deliver the land directly to the reporter (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da59502, May 12, 1995; 2009Da1122, Jun.

Thus, the defendant, who does not prove a special title to the land of this case, has the duty to collect the novels and bridges and the iron bars on the ground of each of the above land in subrogation of the state's right to claim the exclusion of disturbance and to deliver the land for possession.

2) However, the plaintiff sought collection and delivery of the facilities owned by the defendant on the ground of the land subject to the permission for expropriation and use of the land in this case, and where part of the claim is accepted, the plaintiff clearly expresses his intention to pay compensation in proportion to the area of the land subject to delivery as simultaneous performance (However, if 50% or more of the total claim is accepted, the plaintiff expressed his intention to pay the full compensation as simultaneous performance). The plaintiff's claim for delivery of the land in this case is accepted that one,23 meters of the total area of the land subject to delivery (total area of the land list in attached Form 1) of 12,362 square meters of the total area of the whole land subject to delivery (total area of the land subject to delivery).

Therefore, as requested by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obliged to collect 37,445,418 won (i.e., KRW 375,426,00 KRW x 1233/12362, and less than KRW 1233/12362), and to deliver the land in possession.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Kim Young-young

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.