(b) Effect of adjudication by the Land Expropriation Committee on the basis of a land record prepared with no presence and signature and seal of landowners;

B. Even if a land protocol attached to an application for adjudication was prepared without the landowner’s presence and signature and seal, this is an issue of the probative value of such entry, and it cannot be deemed as a ground for revocation on the ground that the Land Tribunal’s adjudication was unlawful.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the Minister of Construction and Transportation has already designated the land (1,453,00 square meters) located in the steel industry unit including the land in this case at 1983 Jun. 28, 1983 as the project implementer of the housing site development project pursuant to Article 3 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, and notified the defendant as the project implementer of the housing site development project pursuant to Article 7 of the same Act, which approved the housing site development plan under Article 8 of the same Act, and notified the construction schedule as 474 of the public notice. The plaintiff, as the project owner of the above 1,453,00 square meters, had no authority to file an objection against the above 1,40 square meters of the housing site, and the defendant had no authority to file an objection to the alteration of the housing site development plan and the construction schedule under Articles 8 and 9 of the Land Expropriation Act, and the defendant had no authority to file an objection against the non-party 1,600 square meters of the land development plan.

It is natural in light of the legal principle that a person who has an objection to the adjudication of expropriation made by the Land Tribunal may file an administrative litigation seeking the exclusion of expropriation on the ground that it is unreasonable to do so.

In this case, as determined by the court below, if the Minister of Construction and Transportation designates the land in this case as included in the prearranged area of housing site development and its execution plan prepared by the defendant assistant participant designated as the project executor, and separately approves and publicly notifies the housing site development plan and its execution plan, the application form for the plan shall contain the location and size of the land to be developed, the location and lot number of the land to be expropriated, land category, area, and details of rights such as ownership, etc., and the contents of the approval shall be publicly notified (Article 7 and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act shall also be deemed to have been approved and publicly notified pursuant to Articles 14 and 16 of the Land Development Promotion Act if the approval of the above housing site development plan is publicly notified, the approval of the above housing site development plan of the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall be deemed to fall under the housing site development project under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, and the purport of the above administrative disposition shall not be deemed to have been legitimate, and as such, the effect of the approval shall not have been established in the above administrative disposition of the plaintiff's right to be subject to expropriation.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The court below, based on macroficial evidence, accepted an intervenor's application for land expropriation ruling, and notified the plaintiff, etc., and other land owners and persons concerned of this public notice for 14 days until August 9, 1984. The court below determined that pursuant to Article 36 (1) and (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, the defendant sent a copy of the application for adjudication and related documents to the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor, and ordered the defendant to peruse them and submit a written opinion to the defendant for 2 weeks from the date of public notice and announcement, and that the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor was entitled to submit a written objection to the plaintiff, etc., and the plaintiff, etc. and the other land owners and persons concerned can submit their written opinions to the defendant. The plaintiff submitted a written objection to the defendant to the defendant on August 6, 1984, and submitted it to the non-party 1 to the non-party 198, which is the same land subject to expropriation, and the defendant could not be allowed to accept it as the plaintiff's co-owners, etc., and the plaintiff 1984.

According to the records, the court below's findings of fact are consistent with Article 8 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and there is no provision that the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall listen to the opinion of related persons such as land owners in advance, unlike the case of Article 15 of the Land Expropriation Act in approving the housing site development project plan prepared by the project implementer. Even if the land of this case was prepared without the presence and signature of the land owners such as the plaintiff, this is an issue as to the probative value of the entry, and it cannot be considered as a ground for cancellation of the defendant's decision as an unlawful act as a matter of this reason (According to the records, the land of this case can not be signed and sealed by the supplementary intervenor, and it can be seen that the land of this case was lawfully prepared with the signatures and seals of the public officials belonging to Gwangjin-si and it is inevitable that the supplementary intervenor was given the opportunity to submit the plaintiffs' opinions in the adjudication procedure of this case, and the records do not affect the conclusion of the court below.

3. 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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)