One Law Partners, LLC represented a public agency acting as the project implementer as an intervenor supporting the defendant in an administrative lawsuit challenging an expropriation adjudication in an urban development project and successfully defended against allegations that the adjudication was unlawful due to failure to satisfy the negotiated acquisition ratio, resulting in the dismissal of all claims brought by the plaintiffs.


1. Overview of the Case

The client was a public institution that jointly implemented an urban development project together with a local government and a local public corporation.

The urban development project at issue was undertaken to promote regional development and improve public convenience through the construction of residential and business facilities and the enhancement of transportation transfer systems. In the course of acquiring land within the project area, compensation negotiations were conducted with landowners.

During the project approval process, the Central Land Tribunal presented an opinion that the project implementers should acquire a specified percentage of privately owned land through negotiation before applying for an expropriation adjudication. In response, the client conducted negotiations by publishing compensation plans and holding meetings with landowners, resident briefings, and compensation consultation committees. However, the parties were unable to reach agreement due to differences regarding compensation assessments and appraisal procedures.

The project implementers ultimately applied for an expropriation adjudication by submitting explanations and supporting materials demonstrating the inability to reach an agreement. The Local Land Tribunal thereafter rendered an expropriation adjudication for the relevant land. Certain landowners subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit seeking revocation of the adjudication, arguing that the project implementers had failed to satisfy the negotiated acquisition ratio suggested by the Central Land Tribunal and had not engaged in good-faith compensation negotiations.

One Law Partners, LLC represented the public institution acting as the project implementer as an intervenor supporting the defendant and defended the legality of the expropriation adjudication.

 

2. Key Issues

The first issue was whether the negotiated acquisition ratio presented by the Central Land Tribunal constituted a legally binding condition restricting applications for expropriation adjudication.

The plaintiffs argued that the project implementers had failed to satisfy the requirement, suggested during the project approval process, to acquire at least 50% of privately owned land through negotiation and that the application for expropriation adjudication was therefore unlawful.

Accordingly, the key issue was whether the opinion constituted a mandatory legal requirement that had to be satisfied or merely a recommendatory guideline intended to encourage good-faith compensation negotiations.

The second issue was whether an application for expropriation adjudication could be filed despite the failure to achieve the negotiated acquisition ratio.

The Central Land Tribunal’s opinion provided that, where achieving the target acquisition ratio was unavoidably difficult, an application for expropriation adjudication could be submitted together with supporting materials explaining the reasons negotiations had failed.

Accordingly, the issues included whether the client had conducted negotiations in good faith, whether sufficient grounds had been provided to explain the failure to reach agreement, and whether all procedures related to the expropriation adjudication had been lawfully carried out.


3. Key Response Strategy

One Law Partners, LLC first reviewed the relevant provisions of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and the Urban Development Act and analyzed the legal nature of the opinion issued by the Central Land Tribunal.

In particular, the firm argued that the negotiated acquisition ratio was merely a recommendatory measure intended to encourage sincere negotiations and that failure to achieve a specific acquisition ratio did not, in itself, render the expropriation adjudication unlawful.

The firm also organized objective evidence of the client’s negotiation efforts, including public notices of compensation plans, compensation consultation committee meetings, requests for negotiations, and meetings with landowners, thereby demonstrating that the client had fully complied with its statutory obligation to negotiate.

In addition, the firm refuted the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning irregularities in the selection of appraisal firms and the calculation of compensation by reviewing the relevant procedures and documentation. During the litigation, the firm also actively relied on the fact that the Central Land Tribunal, when reviewing related objections, had recognized both the recommendatory nature of the acquisition ratio condition and the project implementer’s sincere efforts to negotiate.

As a result, the court determined that the negotiated acquisition ratio condition presented by the Central Land Tribunal was not a mandatory legal requirement with binding force but rather a recommendation intended to encourage good-faith negotiations.

The court further held that, where achieving the proposed acquisition ratio was difficult, an application for expropriation adjudication could be filed together with explanations and supporting materials demonstrating the reasons negotiations had failed. In light of the project implementer’s efforts and the supporting documentation, the court found no illegality in the expropriation adjudication process.

Accordingly, the court dismissed all claims seeking revocation of the expropriation adjudication and ordered the plaintiffs to bear the litigation costs.


4. Significance of the Case

This case addresses the legal effect of opinions issued by the Central Land Tribunal during land expropriation procedures for public projects and the project implementer’s obligation to engage in good-faith compensation negotiations.

In particular, the case confirms that the mere failure to satisfy a specified negotiated acquisition ratio does not automatically render an expropriation adjudication unlawful and that a comprehensive assessment must be made of the actual negotiation efforts undertaken and the reasons agreement could not be reached.

One Law Partners, LLC successfully demonstrated the legality of the expropriation adjudication on behalf of the intervening public institution through a comprehensive analysis of the relevant statutes, negotiation procedures, compensation-related evidence, and the Central Land Tribunal’s subsequent objection adjudication.

This case is significant in that it supported the stable implementation of a public urban development project by successfully defending the legality of the expropriation adjudication and obtaining the dismissal of all claims seeking its revocation.


-
Chang-Hwan Park, Attorney | chpark@onelawpartners.com
Ha-Yeong Yon, Attorney | hyyon@onelawpartners.com
-
Public Relations Team, One Law Partners, LLC | pr@onelawpartners.com