[2] The objective scope of res judicata of the judgment revoking an administrative disposition, and whether a new administrative disposition made by supplementing the grounds for illegality indicated in the judgment violates res judicata of the final judgment (negative)

[2] In a case where a judgment revoking an administrative disposition becomes final and conclusive due to an error in administrative disposition, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment shall be limited to the grounds for illegality stated in the judgment. As such, a new administrative disposition made by an administrative agency to supplement the grounds for illegality stated in the final and conclusive judgment shall not conflict with the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment,

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 10 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 199), Article 7 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Price of the individual land provides that the individual land price shall be calculated on the basis of the officially announced land price. However, Article 93 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Price of the same Act provides that only one reference land shall be selected from the relevant administrative agencies, but the above provision merely provides that the standard land price shall be determined on the basis of administrative convenience within the range of higher Acts and subordinate statutes, if there are two or more reference land prices, the above standard land price shall be determined on the basis of the difference between the characteristics of the land and that of the reference land in this case, and the above standard land price shall not be determined on the basis of the comparison of the above standard land price.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In a case where a judgment revoking an administrative disposition becomes final and conclusive due to an error in administrative disposition, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment shall be limited to the grounds for illegality stated in the final and conclusive judgment. As such, a new administrative disposition made by an administrative agency to supplement the grounds for illegality stated in the final and conclusive judgment shall not conflict with the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment, as it is separate from the previous disposition revoked by a final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu5242, May 26, 1992; 91Nu10275, Nov. 24

According to the records, the previous 193 disposition on the land of this case was rendered on the ground that the previous 193 disposition on the land of this case was against the law of applying a wrong price distribution rate by excluding the investigation and comparison of the standard land price according to the land price ratification table and the characteristics of the land of this case (No. 3-1, No. 2). Accordingly, the defendant is aware of the fact that he newly applied the price distribution rate by comparing the characteristics of the previous standard land and the land of this case in accordance with the purport of the above final judgment, and at the same time applied the new standard land price by adding one of the new reference land other than the previous standard land in addition to the previous standard land. Thus, the disposition of this case is a separate disposition different from the previous one, and thus it cannot

In conclusion, the judgment below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles or violation of precedents as discussed. We also have no reason to see this.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Jeong Ho-ho (Presiding Justice)