(b) Whether the defects of the Minister of Construction and Transportation who failed to take the procedures under Articles 8 (2) and 9 (3) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act are the grounds for invalidation of adjudication on an objection as a matter of course;

(c) Whether an adjudication has become null and void by failing to have landowners attend the preparation of land and goods protocols and sign and seal thereon;

(d) Whether defects, such as preparation of land and goods protocols, non-notification of landowners with approval for a land expropriation project, and application for adjudication of expropriation without consultation with landowners, are grounds for invalidation of adjudication as a matter of course under the absence of original land register;

B. Defects such as failure to go through the public inspection procedure of the housing site development plan under Articles 8(2) and 9(3) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act or failure to go through the public inspection procedure of the housing site development plan, etc. to notify the landowner of the particulars of the land to be expropriated are merely the grounds for seeking revocation of the relevant adjudication in a lawsuit against this ruling, not the grounds for invalidation.

C. In preparing a land and goods protocol as stipulated in Article 23 of the Land Expropriation Act, the reason that the public project operator did not have the land owner attend and sign and seal it cannot be considered as the ground for cancellation on the sole ground that the objection is unlawful. Thus, such reason cannot be the ground for invalidation of the decision.

D. Also, defects such as preparing a land and goods protocol in the absence of the original cadastral map, approval of the land expropriation project pursuant to Article 16 of the Land Expropriation Act, failing to notify the landowner, etc. thereof, or filing an application for adjudication to expropriate the land without consultation with the landowner, etc. cannot be deemed as a ground for revocation of the adjudication as a procedural illegality.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 2 filed an application for a ruling to expropriate the land in question with the owner of the land in question, which is the implementer of the housing site development project in Seoul New and Wood District. The non-party 2 filed an application for a ruling to expropriate the land in question on March 4, 1986. The defendant made a ruling to expropriate the land in question on August 28, 1986. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the first objection and filed a suit to seek cancellation of the first objection, which did not expressly state which the standard price of the land in question is any land in the appraisal of the dispute, which is the basis of the first objection. The court below determined that the non-party 2's determination to revoke the first objection on the ground that it was unlawful because it did not specifically specify the normal price of the neighboring land and the method of taking into account the normal price of the land in question, and that it did not constitute a ground for cancellation of the second appraisal and assessment at the time of 196.2.

However, in light of the selection of standard land and the normal market price of similar neighboring land, even if an appraisal institution requested to make an appraisal for the second objection by the defendant after the cancellation of the first objection by a final judgment between the plaintiff and the defendant, and in consideration of the selection of the standard land and the normal market price of similar neighboring land, the above defects existing in the second objection ruling based on such a final judgment may not be deemed as a significant and obvious defect as long as the second objection ruling becomes a cause for revocation of the second objection.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no illegality as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

The Second Ground of Appeal

Article 8(2) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act provides that when the Minister of Construction and Transportation approves the housing site development plan, he/she shall publicly notify the head of the competent Si/Gun of the approval, send the details thereof to the public for public inspection. Article 9(3) of the same Act provides that when the Minister of Construction and Transportation approves the implementation plan for the housing site development project requiring the expropriation of land, he/she shall publicly notify the operator’s name, type of the project and details of the land to be expropriated in the Official Gazette, and notify the owner of the land and the right holder thereof. However, any defects such as failing to go through the public inspection of the housing site development plan or failing to take the procedure for notifying the landowner of the details of the land to be expropriated and failing to go through the public inspection of the said plan, etc. However, it shall not be deemed that the ground for seeking the cancellation of the adjudication becomes the one for invalidation which becomes impossible from the beginning of the adjudication even if the adjudication was invalidated (see Supreme Court

We affirm the judgment of the court below to the same purport, and we cannot accept the appeal.

As to the third ground for appeal

In the preparation of land and goods protocols under Article 23 of the Land Expropriation Act, even if public project operators did not have landowners attend the land and sign and seal thereon, such reasons alone cannot serve as the grounds for cancellation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu256, Aug. 19, 1986; 87Nu947, Jan. 23, 1990; 87Nu947, Jan. 23, 1990; 2009Da1847, Apr. 15, 1988; 2009Da187, Apr. 16, 1988; 2008Da187, Apr. 15, 1986; 2008Da1887, Apr. 15, 1986; 2008Da1887, Apr. 18, 1987; 2008Da227, etc.).

Therefore, even if the court below did not decide on the plaintiff's assertion that the second ruling of objection is null and void as a matter of course on the ground as above, it is clear that the plaintiff's assertion is groundless. Thus, it is obvious that such illegality of the court below is not affected by the judgment, and eventually, it goes back to the absence of reasons for the argument.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)