[토지수용행정처분취소청구사건][고집1977특,415]
Eligibility for employees in cases where the Central Land Expropriation Committee files an administrative litigation against adjudication on land expropriation;
According to the provisions of Articles 74 and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, in case where there is an objection against a judgment rendered by the local Land Expropriation Committee, a request for objection may be made to the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and in case where there is an objection against a judgment made by the said Committee on the objection, it may institute an administrative litigation again, and in order to file an administrative litigation against the said objection, the said
Articles 74 and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act
Supreme Court Decision 77Nu107 Decided February 14, 1978 delivered on November 30, 1971
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Jeonnam-do Local Land Tribunal
The action shall be dismissed.
Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The disposition of land expropriation ruling by the defendant on May 25, 1976 against the plaintiffs shall be revoked.
The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant
As of May 25, 1976, the defendant made a ruling of land expropriation with respect to the attached land owned by the plaintiffs, and again, the Central Land Expropriation Committee made a ruling that the defendant partially changed the contents of the above expropriation ruling as of September 3, 1676 on the objection of the plaintiffs against the above expropriation ruling. There is no dispute between the parties.
However, although the land expropriation ruling made by the defendant as to the land in the annexed form owned by the plaintiffs cannot be publicly announced as the standard land price according to the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory for the land which is incorporated into the land in the land readjustment project zone under the Urban Planning Act, it is unlawful for the defendant to determine the compensation amount for the above land in determining the land by the report on the area where the standard is publicly announced as stipulated in Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory in the above land, and therefore, the defendant's claim that the above land cannot be exempted from the cancellation of the disposition for the land expropriation. As such, the defendant's claim that the land expropriation ruling made by the defendant cannot be exempted from the cancellation of the disposition for the land expropriation, is the Central Land Expropriation Committee
Therefore, we will examine the legitimacy of this lawsuit. The provisions of Articles 74 and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act provide that the person who is dissatisfied with the adjudication of the local Land Expropriation Committee may raise an objection to the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and that if the person is dissatisfied with the adjudication of the said objection, he may institute an administrative litigation. In this case, since the plaintiffs filed an objection to the adjudication of the expropriation of the defendant's principal case which is the local Land Expropriation Committee, and the adjudication of the above objection was made by the said Central Land Expropriation Committee, the plaintiffs had filed an administrative litigation against the above objection against the adjudication of the expropriation of the case, and therefore, the plaintiff was correct to have filed an administrative litigation against the Central Land Expropriation Committee with the defendant, and therefore, the defendant is not qualified as the defendant in the administrative litigation of the case, and therefore the lawsuit
In other words, this lawsuit shall be dismissed on the ground of its illegality, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs who have lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.
[Attachment]
Judges Noh Byung-man (Presiding Judge)