Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Refusing to hand over expropriated land as a legitimate act
Supreme Court, Sept. 11, 2025, 2022Do493 (judgment)
Case name: 공익사업을위한토지등의취득및보상에관한법률위반[수용되는 토지에 있는 지장물을 소유한 자가 이주대책의 미수립·실시를 이유로 지장물을 인도·이전하지 않은 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a landowner or right-holder does not hand over or transfer the land or the structures on it after the expropriation commencement date, in breach of Article 43 and Article 95-2, item (ii) of the Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land etc. for Public Interest Projects, may that refusal nevertheless constitute a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act so that its unlawfulness is excluded?
Holding
Yes. Weighing together what the owner loses through the project, whether the loss of a dwelling costs the owner the basis of daily life, whether a relocation scheme under Article 78 was carried out or a resettlement allowance paid, how long the owner held the property and the living environment built up on it, how easy relocation is, and the effect of the refusal on the project, a refusal that can be tolerated in view of the spirit of the legal order as a whole or the dominant social ethics or social consciousness behind it must be held to be a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act. The Supreme Court quashed the convicted part because the court below had misapprehended the law on that offence and on legitimate acts; since that part and the part the court below had acquitted formed a single crime, the whole judgment was quashed.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
토지 또는 물건의 인도·이전거절행위가 공익사업의 시행에 미친 영향 등을 종합하여, 토지소유자 등의 인도·이전거절행위가 법질서 전체의 정신이나 그 배후의 지배적인 사회윤리 또는 사회통념에 비추어 용인될 수 있는 행위로 볼 수 있는 때에는 형법 제20조의 정당행위에 해당하여 위법성이 조각된다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
where, upon comprehensively considering the effects that the refusal to deliver or transfer the land or chattels has had on the implementation of the public project, among other things, the landowner's, etc. act of refusing to deliver or transfer can be regarded as conduct that is tolerable in light of the spirit of the legal order as a whole or the prevailing social ethics or social norms underlying it, it must be held to constitute a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, thereby negating unlawfulness.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 춘천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Chuncheon District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
생활환경, 그에 따른 이주의 용이성, 토지 또는 물건의 인도·이전거절행위가 공익사업의 시행에 미친 영향 등을 종합하여
Unofficial English translation
upon comprehensively considering the living environment, the resulting ease of relocation, the effect that the refusal to deliver or transfer the land or chattels has had on the implementation of the public project, among other things,
Factors
- 토지소유자 등이 공익사업의 시행으로 인하여 상실하게 되는 권리의 내용
- 특히 주거용 건축물을 제공함에 따라 생활의 근거를 상실하게 되는지 여부
- 그 경우 토지보상법 제78조에 따른 이주대책의 수립·실시가 이루어지거나 이주정착금 등이 지급되었는지 여부
- 토지소유자 등이 인도·이전의 대상인 토지 또는 물건을 보유한 기간과 그 기간 동안 해당 토지 또는 물건에 관하여 형성하여 온 생활환경
- 토지 또는 물건의 인도·이전거절행위가 공익사업의 시행에 미친 영향
Unofficial English translation
• The nature of the rights that the landowner, etc. will lose due to the implementation of the public project
• In particular, whether the provision of a residential building results in the loss of the basis of livelihood
• In such a case, whether a resettlement plan has been established and implemented or a resettlement settlement allowance or the like has been paid in accordance with Article 78 of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act
• The period for which the landowner, etc. has held the land or chattels subject to delivery or transfer, and the living environment formed in relation to such land or chattels during that period
• The effect that the refusal to deliver or transfer the land or chattels has had on the implementation of the public project
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
따라서 토지소유자 등이 수용 개시일 이후 토지 또는 물건을 인도·이전하지 않는 경우에도, 토지소유자 등이 공익사업의 시행으로 인하여 상실하게 되는 권리의 내용
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, even where the landowner, etc. does not deliver or transfer the land or chattels after the date of commencement of expropriation, the nature of the rights that the landowner, etc. will lose due to the implementation of the public project
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the relocation scheme's implementation plan had been approved and the owner had known the form and character of the land to be allocated, could the same refusal still have been tolerated as a legitimate act?
A later decision that weighs these factors in a case where the relocation scheme had already taken shape would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 20 of the Criminal Act or to Article 43, Article 78 or Article 95-2, item (ii) of the Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land etc. for Public Interest Projects also calls for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary presents the holding as setting a new standard, while the independent could not confirm whether it departs from earlier precedent, so the precedent relationship is read differently.
따라서 토지소유자 등이 수용 개시일 이후 토지 또는 물건을 인도·이전하지 않는 경우에도, 토지소유자 등이 공익사업의 시행으로 인하여 상실하게 되는 권리의 내용Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Chuncheon District Court, in its judgment of 17 December 2021 (2021No402), held that the first-instance findings and judgment rejecting the defendant's defence were sound: the defendant had not handed over the house because the project operator had not provided a place to relocate to. It therefore convicted the defendant of offences under Article 95-2, item (ii) and Article 43 of the Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land etc. for Public Interest Projects.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the refusal was a legitimate act on this record. The defendant had lived in the house and farmed nearby for decades, so handing it over meant moving an entire way of life; although selected as a relocatee, the defendant could not know the shape or character of the land to be allocated, because during the offence period from around August 2020 to 2 November 2020 the implementation plan for the relocation scheme had not been approved and no notice, application or ballot for the housing site had taken place; the refusal ended when temporary accommodation was provided in August 2021; and nothing showed that it caused a serious setback to the army unit relocation project. The court below had misapprehended the law on the offence under Article 95-2, item (ii) and Article 43 of the Act and on legitimate acts, an error affecting the judgment, so the convicted part was quashed; since that part and the part the court below had acquitted formed a single crime, the whole judgment was quashed and the case sent back to the Chuncheon District Court, the Justices being unanimous.
Distinguishing conditions
- A relocatee whose implementation plan for the relocation scheme had been approved and who had gone through notice, application and ballot for the housing site, so that the object of the allocation right was known.
- A refusal that caused a serious setback to the public interest project, since the absence of such an effect was one of the circumstances the Court weighed.
- An owner who had been paid a resettlement allowance or was given a place to live, so that the loss of the basis of daily life could be met otherwise than by remaining in the property.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, build the timeline: how long the owner lived on the property and what work was done there, the date of the expropriation commencement decision, and the exact stage of the relocation scheme at the time of each refusal. Then ask what the refusal actually delayed, since the Court found no serious setback, and note that the defendant handed the house over once temporary accommodation was given in August 2021.
From the official text
Points at issue
공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 제95조의2 제2호, 제43조를 위반하여 토지소유자 등이 수용 개시일 이후 토지 또는 물건을 인도·이전하지 않더라도 토지소유자 등의 인도·이전거절행위가 형법 제20조의 정당행위에 해당하여 위법성이 조각될 수 있는 경우 및 그 판단 기준
Unofficial English translation
Whether and under what criteria a landowner's, etc. refusal to deliver or transfer land or chattels after the date of commencement of expropriation may constitute a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, thereby negating unlawfulness, even where the landowner, etc. does not deliver or transfer the land or chattels after the date of commencement of expropriation in violation of Article 95-2 subparagraph 2 and Article 43 of the Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Projects
Summary of the holding
공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률(이하 ‘토지보상법’이라 한다)은 제43조에서 "토지소유자 및 관계인과 그 밖에 토지소유자나 관계인에 포함되지 아니하는 자로서 수용하거나 사용할 토지나 그 토지에 있는 물건에 관한 권리를 가진 자(이하 ‘토지소유자 등’이라 한다)는 수용 또는 사용의 개시일까지 그 토지나 물건을 사업시행자에게 인도하거나 이전하여야 한다."라고 규정하고, 제95조의2 제2호에서 이를 위반하여 토지 또는 물건을 인도하거나 이전하지 아니한 자를 처벌한다고 규정하고 있다. 토지보상법 제95조의2 제2호, 제43조가 토지소유자 등으로 하여금 수용할 토지 또는 물건을 수용 개시일까지 사업시행자에게 인도·이전하도록 하고, 이를 위반한 토지소유자 등을 처벌하도록 하는 것은 공익사업의 효율적인 수행을 위한 것이다. 그러나 토지보상법 제95조의2 제2호, 제43조의 벌칙조항으로 인하여 토지소유자 등은 거주이전의 자유, 직업의 자유, 재산권 등의 헌법상 기본권에 큰 제한을 받는다. 이처럼 충돌하는 법익들이 적절하게 조화되도록 하고 토지소유자 등의 헌법상 기본권의 본질적 내용이 침해되지 않도록 할 필요가 있다. 따라서 토지소유자 등이 수용 개시일 이후 토지 또는 물건을 인도·이전하지 않는 경우에도, 토지소유자 등이 공익사업의 시행으로 인하여 상실하게 되는 권리의 내용, 특히 주거용 건축물을 제공함에 따라 생활의 근거를 상실하게 되는지 여부, 그 경우 토지보상법 제78조에 따른 이주대책의 수립·실시가 이루어지거나 이주정착금 등이 지급되었는지 여부, 토지소유자 등이 인도·이전의 대상인 토지 또는 물건을 보유한 기간과 그 기간 동안 해당 토지 또는 물건에 관하여 형성하여 온 생활환경, 그에 따른 이주의 용이성, 토지 또는 물건의 인도·이전거절행위가 공익사업의 시행에 미친 영향 등을 종합하여, 토지소유자 등의 인도·이전거절행위가 법질서 전체의 정신이나 그 배후의 지배적인 사회윤리 또는 사회통념에 비추어 용인될 수 있는 행위로 볼 수 있는 때에는 형법 제20조의 정당행위에 해당하여 위법성이 조각된다고 보아야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 춘천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Chuncheon District Court.
Provisions referred to
헌법 제14조, 제15조, 제23조, 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 제43조, 제78조, 제95조의2 제2호, 형법 제20조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger