[토지수용재결처분취소등][공1993.8.1.(949),1899]
(a) Whether any administrative litigation on any increase or decrease of compensation which the landowner or person concerned raises under Article 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act is a requisite co-litigants to be jointly accused in addition to the ruling agency (affirmative); and
(b) The meaning of "corporate person" under Article 75-2 (2) of the same Act;
(c) When an administrative agency implements a public project, the defendant (=the State or a local public entity) in the administrative litigation under Paragraph (a).
(a) If the owner or interested person of the land to be expropriated files an administrative suit against an increase or decrease of compensation in a ruling on an objection pursuant to Article 75-2(1) and (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, the lawsuit shall be a necessary co-litigation in which the ruling authority and the contractor are co-defendants.
(b)the term "project owner" in Article 75bis(2) of the same Act means the State or local public entity, which is the subject of the rights and obligations to obtain the right of land ownership, etc. by adjudication and thereby compensate for the loss suffered by the landowner or person concerned.
(c) Even if the Minister of Construction and Transportation or the administrative agency of the head of a Si/Gun implements a public project eligible for expropriation or use of land under Article 23 of the Urban Planning Act, administrative litigation over an increase or decrease in compensation for losses shall be filed against the State or local public agency which is the subject of the rights and obligations belonging to the administrative agency, and
(a)Article 75-2(a) of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 15(c) of the Administrative Litigation Act;
A.B. (c) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu7545 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 327) 91Nu308 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 697) 91Nu1615 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong192, 1613), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu774 delivered on February 11, 1992 (Gong192, 1039)
[Judgment of the court below]
Central Land Tribunal and one other
Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu18608 delivered on September 24, 1992
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
Judgment ex officio is made.
Where the owner or interested person of the land subject to expropriation files an administrative lawsuit against an increase or decrease of compensation in accordance with Article 75-2 (1) and (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, the action is required co-litigation that only requires co-litigation between the ruling authority and the public enterprise (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu87, May 28, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu285, Nov. 26, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu308, Dec. 24, 1991; 91Nu1615, Apr. 14, 1992; and 91Nu1615, Apr. 14, 199). The term "project owner" under the above provision means the owner of the land by the ruling and the administrative authority, which is the subject of the rights and obligations to compensate for losses suffered by the owner or interested person, and thus, the State or local government can not file an administrative litigation against the State or local government.
According to the records, even though the plaintiff, the owner of the goods to be expropriated and transferred, was an administrative litigation on the increase or decrease of compensation, which was filed against the adjudication on an objection pursuant to Article 75-2 (1) and (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, it is clear that the Central Land Expropriation Committee and the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is a co-defendant. The head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is not the subject of the right and duty to acquire the ownership of land, etc. and compensate for the losses suffered by the plaintiff, and therefore, the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is not the subject of the right and duty to compensate for the losses suffered by the plaintiff. However, even though it is obvious that the court below cannot be a legitimate party to the lawsuit of this case, the court below deliberated and judged the lawsuit of this case by misunderstanding the legal principles on Article 75-2 (2) of the Land Expropriation
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)