[토지수용이의재결처분취소][공1997.5.15.(34),1454]
Whether an objection against the invalidated acceptance ruling is appropriate (negative)
The adjudication of expropriation by the central or local land expropriation committee does not completely differ from the general administrative disposition in that it aims at a certain legal effect in its nature. Therefore, in a case where the adjudication of expropriation by the central or local land expropriation committee, which became the object of an objection, is not existing due to the invalidation of the adjudication of expropriation by the central or local land expropriation committee, the objection against the adjudication is unlawful as
Articles 65 and 75(1) of the Land Expropriation Act
Supreme Court Decision 84Nu158 delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 649) Supreme Court Decision 89Nu879 delivered on August 8, 1989 (Gong1989, 1382)
Emotionical research;
Central Land Tribunal (Law Firm Sejong-dong Law Office, Attorneys Choi Won-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu26997 delivered on February 7, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
The adjudication of expropriation by the central or local land expropriation committee does not completely differ from the general administrative disposition in that it aims at a certain legal effect in its nature. Thus, if the adjudication of expropriation by the central or local land expropriation committee is not existing due to the invalidation of the adjudication of expropriation by the central or local land expropriation committee which became the object of an objection, the objection against it is deemed unlawful that there is no interest in the dispute.
In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff did not pay or deposit the compensation until the time of expropriation stipulated in the adjudication on expropriation of this case. Thus, the adjudication on expropriation of this case automatically becomes null and void pursuant to Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act, and therefore, the defendant's objection that dismissed the plaintiff's objection on the ground that the plaintiff's objection seeking revocation or alteration of the adjudication on expropriation of this case already invalidated is unlawful, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as
In addition, all of the arguments by the plaintiff as the grounds of appeal in this case are the contents pointing out illegality on the premise that the adjudication of acceptance in this case has not been invalidated. Thus, as long as the above judgment of the court below is justified, this does not affect the result of the judgment of the court below, and there is no reason to determine
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 Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)