(b) Invalidation of adjudication and application for adjudication, and validity of project approval;

(c) Where an administrative disposition in dispute is null and void, a copy of the judgment of assessment;

B. If the adjudication becomes void, the application for adjudication also becomes void, so if the application for adjudication is not filed within one year from the date of notification of the project approval under Article 17 of the Land Expropriation Act, the project approval also becomes void and the entire procedure for expropriation shall be returned to blank.

C. In a case where an administrative disposition in dispute is null and void, there is no administrative act which has the effect to maintain the administrative disposition, so the circumstances under Article 12 of the former Administrative Litigation Act (No. 213 of August 24, 1951) cannot be ruled.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Even if the contents of land expropriation show the effect of compulsory acquisition of property rights of other persons to public project operators, it is the condition of payment of compensation, so it is reasonable to interpret Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act that "if a public project operator fails to pay or deposit compensation decided by the competent Land Expropriation Committee by the designated time of expropriation, the above adjudication shall lose its effect" as well as an application for adjudication which is the premise of the above adjudication of the Land Expropriation Committee, unless the public project operator pays or deposits the compensation which has been decided by the competent Land Expropriation Committee by the designated time of expropriation.

The court below is just in holding that the defendant's ruling (i.e., June 24, 1980) has no effect on the land owned by the intervenor, who is an entrepreneur, and has not paid or deposited the compensation by the time of expropriation in accordance with the defendant's ruling regarding the land owned by the plaintiff as an area for national defense and military projects (i.e., the creation of a training book for the Busan-si Reserve Forces in Busan-si) pursuant to the above opinion, and therefore, the defendant's ruling (i.e., the plaintiff's ruling 1980) has no effect on the part of the intervenor, and the plaintiff's application for adjudication has no application for adjudication within one year from the date of the public notification of the approval under Article 17 of the Land Expropriation Act

In addition, the court below held that the defendant's ruling of this case (as of June 29, 1982) based on the premise that the defendant still still remains valid the approval of the previous project and the application for adjudication, such as the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation's project and the application for adjudication, etc., to expropriate the land owned by the plaintiff which was not paid or deposited by the intervenor by the time of expropriation, shall not render a judgment on the circumstances provided in Article 12 of the former Administrative Litigation Act (as of August 24, 1951, Act No. 213) because there is no effective administrative act to maintain the administrative disposition in dispute, since there is no effective administrative act to maintain it, (see Supreme Court Decisions 70Nu60 delivered on June 30, 1970, and 69Nu126 delivered on July 24, 1970). Such a decision of the court below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles and incomplete deliberation as to administrative litigation.

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 Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)