Any effect that any landowner receives from public project operators the compensation set forth in the Land Tribunal’s expropriation ruling or its ruling, or the compensation increased in the said ruling without expression of any particular intention.

If a landowner has received from a public project operator the compensation as stipulated in the expropriation ruling or objection ruling by the Land Tribunal without any specific expression of intent, it would be reasonable to view that he has received the compensation by accepting the said expropriation ruling or objection ruling, and as long as the landowner did not express his intent of reservation, such as receiving the increased compensation in the adjudication of expropriation, even if he did not receive it at the time of receiving the compensation as stipulated in the adjudication of expropriation, it would be reasonable to view that the Central Land Tribunal has received it by accepting the result as stipulated in the said adjudication.

Article 61 of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Nu197 delivered on November 9, 1982 (Gong1983,113) 81Nu311 delivered on February 22, 1983 (Gong1983,595) 90Nu7203 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong191,1933)

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Central Land Tribunal and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu21676 delivered on November 14, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the court below received the increased compensation in the objection ruling without any objection, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since it is acknowledged that the plaintiffs received the increased compensation in the objection ruling as to the defendant's main safety defense, but the compensation acknowledged in the objection ruling does not reach the legitimate compensation and is merely a part of it. Therefore, even if the plaintiffs did not withhold the compensation increased in the objection ruling while receiving the increased compensation for losses, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs were accepted in the objection ruling or that the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have renounced the right to claim the compensation for losses, the court below rejected the defendants' main safety defense and judged the illegality of the judgment of this case.

However, if a landowner received from a project operator the compensation under the Land Tribunal’s expropriation ruling or its objection without any expression of intent, it would be reasonable to view that he received the compensation by accepting the said expropriation ruling or its objection, and it would be reasonable to view that the Central Land Tribunal received the compensation by accepting the outcome as stipulated in the said adjudication, unless the landowner received the increased compensation in the adjudication and did not express his intent of reservation, such as partial receipt, even at the time when the landowner received the compensation as stipulated in the adjudication of expropriation, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu7203, Jun. 11, 191; 90Nu7081, Aug. 27, 1991). Nevertheless, the court below rejected the Defendants’ principal safety defense solely on the ground as above, because it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the effect of receiving the compensation for objection under the Land Expropriation Act. This point is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)