[이주자택지매매계약해제처분취소][공1996.5.1.(9),1280]
Where the other party has not been notified of the request period for administrative appeal concerning the disposition of the implementer under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the period for administrative appeal
In full view of the relevant provisions under Article 27 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and Articles 18 (1), (3) and (6), 42 (1), and 43 (2) of the Administrative Appeals Act, where the implementer of the housing site development project fails to notify the other party of whether he/she is able to file an administrative appeal, and the deadline for filing an administrative appeal, etc. thereof, the other party may file an administrative appeal within three months from the date of disposition, and any request for administrative appeal filed after the said period is expired.
Article 27 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act; Articles 18(1), (3) and (6), 42(1), and 43(2) of the former Administrative Appeals Act (Amended by Act No. 5000, Dec. 6, 1995);
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
[Judgment of the court below]
Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu520 delivered on November 15, 1995
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In full view of the relevant provisions under Article 27 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and Articles 18(1), (3) and (6), 42(1), and 43(2) of the Administrative Appeals Act, where the implementer of the housing site development project fails to notify the other party of whether he/she is able to file an administrative appeal, and the deadline for filing an administrative appeal, the other party may file an administrative appeal within three months from the date of disposition, and the other party may file an administrative appeal after the lapse of the said period (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1934, Apr. 14, 195).
In this regard, the judgment of the court below which held that the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it did not meet the requirements for filing an administrative appeal after the lapse of three months from the date of the disposition, shall be justified, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the period of filing an administrative appeal, and the Supreme Court decisions pointed out by the theory shall not
In addition, the decision of the court below that the disposition of this case by the defendant, who is the project implementer under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, cancelled the sales contract of the instant regranted housing site with the plaintiffs, is just and it cannot be said that there is an unlawful cause such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below.
All arguments are without merit.
Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.
Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)