Cases where it is recognized that there is no legal interest in seeking cancellation of adjudication due to an agreement on expropriation;

If a landowner receives a more increased amount of compensation than the initial amount of compensation from a project operator and issues a document of ownership transfer registration and decides to acquire the land, an agreement on the expropriation has been concluded, and it is no longer possible to dispute the expropriation and compensation amount of the land more beneficial than the contents of the consultation. Therefore, there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the adjudication.

Article 25 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 25-2 of the Land Expropriation Act

Plaintiff Company

Central Land Expropriation Committee (Supplementary Intervenor) Korea National Housing Corporation

The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On February 22, 1979, the decision made by the defendant against the plaintiff on the expropriation of land on the real estate stated in the annexed sheet and the decision made on February 69,205,00 won for compensation for losses on the real estate recorded in the annexed sheet shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant, on February 22, 1979, rendered a ruling of 69,200 won as to the above real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter this case's real estate) to the plaintiff on February 2, 1979 as 69,205,00 won, without any dispute between the parties, and No. 1, No. 2, No. 6-1, No. 2, No. 7-2, No. 9-2, No. 9-2, No. 11-2, No. 13-2 (Presentation of Written Ruling, No. 1-2, No. 5-2, No. 2, and No. 9-2, No. 2, which had been requested to the plaintiff on Feb. 22, 197, the court below acknowledged that the appraisal and assessment committee had no dispute between the plaintiff and the non-party's witness's testimony on the above land under the Housing Construction Promotion Act No. 2, No. 2, No. 360-3, 978.

On November 1, 197, the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case at KRW 800 million as a registered apartment constructor, and applied for a review of construction of apartment houses for common people, and completed the construction design and the contract for securing materials through the construction committee on December 13, 197. The land of this case is subject to the limitation of expropriation under Article 5 of the Land Expropriation Act as an apartment construction complex. Thus, the expropriation ruling is unfair and even if the land of this case is inevitable, it is more than KRW 950 million of the land price based on the market price announced by the National Tax Service at the time of the National Tax Service, in light of the fact that the decision of this case determined the compensation amount as KRW 660,000,000 should be revoked as it is unlawful, the judgment of this case under the Housing Construction Promotion Act and the Land Expropriation Act, and it is inappropriate for the Defendant to receive the full compensation amount from the housing construction corporation on April 9, 197 and to comply with the decision of this case.

1. The plaintiff's 1. 7 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act was issued to the 1. 5 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act; the 1. 2 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act was issued to the 1. 3 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act; the 1. 4 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act was issued to the 1. 7 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act; the 1. 2 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act was issued to the 1. 3 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act; the 3 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act was issued to the 1. 4 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act; the 2 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act was issued to the 3 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act; the 3 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act was issued to the 1. 4 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act; the 1. 4 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act was announced to the 196 days old Housing Construction Promotion Act; the 3 years old Housing Construction Promotion Act was announced to the 196 days old Housing Construction Promotion Act.

Therefore, in light of the facts of the above recognition, as to the land of this case, when the plaintiff received the adjudication amount increased than the original adjudication compensation from the housing construction project implementer of the housing site development project of this case on April 9, 1979, the plaintiff was found to have reached an agreement with the housing construction project upon the request for consultation on the expropriation of the land of this case by issuing documents required for the registration of the transfer of the land ownership and complying with the request for consultation on the expropriation of the land of this case as the delivery place. Therefore, in relation to the housing construction, the plaintiff cannot dispute the expropriation of the land of this case and the compensation amount to the housing construction more beneficial than the above contents of consultation. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff has no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the adjudication of this case because the expropriation of the land of this case and the compensation amount of this case are unjust.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost, as per Disposition.

Judges Hong Man Pung (Presiding Judge) Kim Full-time Education