(a) Where the land to be expropriated is seized, whether it falls under the grounds for deposit under Article 61 (2) 2 of the Land Expropriation Act;

(b) Effect of the receipt of deposit or deposit compensation after the lapse of the period of expropriation on the adjudication of expropriation;

(a) Even if the land to be expropriated is seized by a local government, if the right to claim compensation for the expropriation of the land is not attached, the person entitled to compensation is still the owner of the land, and if the public project operator deposits the land for the reason that the local government is seized by the local government, making it impossible to identify the person entitled to receive the compensation, it cannot be said that it constitutes the “when the public project operator is unable to know the person entitled to the compensation without any negligence” or “when the payment of compensation is prohibited by the seizure or provisional seizure” or “when the payment of compensation is prohibited by the seizure or provisional seizure”

B. After the lapse of the expropriation period, the adjudication on expropriation does not take effect again, even if the landowner received the deposit compensation with the reservation of objection by correcting the fact of the cause of deposit in the deposit form and the address and name of the person subject to the deposit, since the adjudication on expropriation does not take effect again.

Articles 61 and 65 of the Land Expropriation Act

A.B. Supreme Court Order 92Ma380,381 dated July 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 2512) dated November 30, 1970 (Gong18356 Decided March 10, 1987) 84Nu158 Decided March 10, 1987 (1987, 649) dated June 12, 1990 (190,1458)

Plaintiff-Appellant Lee Chang-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Central Land Tribunal, et al., and one other, Defendants Kim Jong- Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu17196 delivered on April 29, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined (the supplementary appellate brief was submitted after the expiration of the submission period, and it is determined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

Even if the land to be expropriated is seized by a local government, if the right to claim compensation for the expropriation of the land is not seized by the local government, the person to receive compensation is still the owner of the land, and if the public project operator deposits the land for the reason that the local government is not aware of the person to receive compensation because the land to be expropriated was seized by the local government, this does not constitute "if the public project operator is unable to know the person to receive compensation without any negligence," or "if the payment of compensation is prohibited by seizure or provisional seizure" or "if the payment of compensation is prohibited by seizure or provisional seizure" or other legitimate reasons for deposit. Thus, if there is no other payment or deposit by the time of expropriation, the adjudication of expropriation constitutes the case where the public project operator under Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act fails to pay or deposit the compensation by the time of expropriation, and the adjudication of expropriation which reported that the invalidated adjudication of expropriation is valid, it shall be deemed that the adjudication of expropriation shall be null and void as it is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu280, Aug. 19, 192.).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant Corporation's objection that dismissed the plaintiff's objection is null and void in the sense that it maintains the report based on a valid ruling on expropriation since the ruling on expropriation of the land of this case became null and void, on the ground that the land owned by the plaintiff was seized at the beginning of the beginning of the time and the person to receive compensation was not known, the deposit of the land of this case shall be deemed to be unlawful. Therefore, the judgment on expropriation of this case by the defendant Corporation, which rejected the plaintiff's objection, shall not be deemed null and void in the sense that the ruling on expropriation of this case was invalidated by the effective ruling on expropriation of the land of this case. The same applies to the ruling on expropriation of this case, even if the defendant Corporation had corrected the name and address of the person to whom the deposit was made after the expiration of the period

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)