(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.10.16. 선고 2013누12562 판결

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the decision of the second instance made on October 11, 2012 against the plaintiff on the plaintiff.

Reasons

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for adding a judgment on the allegations that the plaintiff newly raised or emphasized in the trial, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance.

First, in order for C to file a claim for compensation for the acquisition of public land of this case, the Plaintiff had been aware of the fact that the cancellation of the right to collateral security established on the land of this case should be prior to the cancellation of the right to collateral security without cancelling the right to collateral security, and thus, the Republic of Korea could have restored to its original state by cancelling the acquisition of public land by reason of C’s deception. However, the Republic of Korea lost the right to cancel under Article 146 of the Civil Act due to the relationship in which Korea did not exercise its right to cancel for ten (10) years, thereby losing the ownership of the land of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff alleged that C was not responsible for the loss of ownership of the land of this case without cancelling the right to collateral security established on the land of this case. Thus, even if C filed a claim for compensation for the acquisition of land of this case without cancelling the right to collateral security established on the land of this case, as the Plaintiff in charge of the business related to compensation by the acquisition of public land in the Korea-U.S. National Land Management Office should have to confirm whether the compensation was cancelled was cancelled.

Next, in addition to the plaintiff's gross negligence, the negligence of the certified judicial scrivener in charge of the registration of the transfer of the land in this case or of the approving authority who approved the disbursement of the compensation money, causing damage to the Republic of Korea by losing the ownership of the land in this case. Thus, even though the certified judicial scrivener in charge of the registration of the transfer of the land in this case or the approving authority who approved the disbursement of the compensation money is responsible for compensating the plaintiff, it is unreasonable to hold the plaintiff liable for compensating for it. Thus, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have caused intentional or gross negligence on the part of the approving authority who approved the disbursement of the compensation money in this case. In addition, it is insufficient to find that the certified judicial scrivener in charge of the registration of the transfer of the land in this case was negligent in performing his duties, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Further, even if there is any negligence on the part of the approving authority who approved the disbursement of the compensation money in this case as alleged by the plaintiff, in light of the fact that the defendant reduced the amount of the compensation money in this case by 1/10 of actual damage.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.