(a) Method of appeal against a determination of individual land price;

(b) Period for requesting reinvestigation of the determination of individual land price;

(c) The case holding that the request for reinvestigation was made, or was made, through the entire procedure in accordance with the guidelines on the joint investigation of land prices and at least through the entire procedure;

A. The owner of land and interested parties who have an objection against the individual land price can immediately file an administrative litigation through either a request for reinvestigation based on the investigation guidelines or an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act, as well as a request for reinvestigation, and it is possible to file an administrative litigation through an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act after being notified of the result.

B. A request for reinvestigation may be made to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu within 60 days from the date when the landowner, etc. becomes aware of the decision-making disposition pursuant to Article 12-2(1) of the Guidelines on the Joint Investigation of Land Price (Prime Directive No. 248) and within 180 days from the date when the decision-making was made pursuant to Article 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, unless there are circumstances to deem that the above disposition was known, and in particular, where there was no public notice or notice of the disposition, such as the determination of individual land price in 190, the request for reinvestigation could be made within the period of the request for reinvestigation unless there are special circumstances that make it possible to make the request for reinvestigation within the period of the request for reinvestigation, unless there are justifiable reasons under the proviso of Article 1

C. Under the name of "re-investigation Claim", such as the name of the procedure for administrative appeals under the guidelines for the joint investigation of land prices, a request for re-investigation against the disposition agency is made. Since the purport of the request or reasons for re-investigation does not completely differ from those of the request for re-investigation as a procedure for pre-investigation, the disposition agency has sufficient opportunity to correct it by examining the request for re-investigation, and even if the request is made again as a procedure for re-investigation, it would result in delaying the remedy of rights by imposing unnecessary burdens on landowners, etc., and thus, it would result in a delay of the establishment of the system, and thus, it would result in re-investigation of the procedure as a procedure for pre-investigation in accordance with the guidelines for the joint investigation of land prices and thus, it would be deemed that the request for re-investigation or goes through at least the procedure for re-investigation.

Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 12-2 of the Guidelines for Joint Investigation of Land Price and Individual Guidelines (Prime Minister Directive No. 248), Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 18(1) and 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17204 delivered on December 24, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 547). (B) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13268 delivered on June 29, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2607). Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Nu851 delivered on June 8, 1990 (Gong190, 1473) (Gong1990, 1473) delivered on January 19, 193, 92Nu19194 delivered on June 29, 193 (Gong1993Ha, 2166)

Plaintiff

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu3348 delivered on July 26, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) The Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices (the Prime Minister Directive No. 241, Apr. 11, 1990; 248, Mar. 29, 191; hereinafter “Investigation Guidelines”) are procedures for administrative appeals against the determination of individual land prices, which are in addition to the administrative appeals, so it is possible for landowners and interested persons who have an objection to the individual land prices to immediately file an administrative litigation through only one of the requests based on the Guidelines for Investigation or the administrative appeals under the Administrative Appeals Act, as well as by filing an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act after receiving the notice of the result of the reexamination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17204, Dec. 24, 1993; hereinafter “Investigation Guidelines”) to file an administrative litigation through the decision of the administrative appeals (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17204, Mar. 29, 191).

On the other hand, the purpose of the investigation guidelines, other than the administrative appeal, is to have the disposition agency have an opportunity for correction by itself, and to effectively and rapidly remedy the rights by providing landowners with an opportunity for diverse and efficient appeal. Therefore, whether a landowner has lawfully completed such administrative appeal procedures should be determined by considering the purport of the establishment of such administrative appeal system. In particular, if the purpose of the submitted document or the intention of the claimant is unclear, the document should be interpreted and processed in a way that the submitted person can benefit.

(2) However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's request to re-examine the land excess profit tax from 1993 to the regular assessment of the officially assessed individual land price, and determined that the plaintiff's request to correct the above officially assessed individual land price for the period of 1990 to 20 August 21, 1993 because there were obvious errors in the calculation after re-auditing the officially assessed individual land price for the period from 1990 to 1993, the defendant could make a request for re-audit; on July 21, 1993, the plaintiff made an objection to the officially assessed individual land price for the period of 1990 to the defendant; however, the defendant's request to correct the above officially assessed individual land price for the year of 1990 to 1990, which was rejected; on the ground that the plaintiff's request to correct the above previously assessed individual land price for the period of 199,000 to 19,000 ex officio or 100.

(3) However, in the case of this case, it is not clear in the record whether the plaintiff made a request for reinvestigation as of July 21, 1993, with the intention of going through the pre-assessment procedure in order to object to the individual land price determination in 1990. However, under the name of "request for reexamination" such as the name of administrative appeals procedure under the investigation guidelines, a claim is filed against the disposition agency to re-examine the land price. Since the purport of the request or the statement of the reasons are completely different from the request for reinvestigation as a pre-investigation procedure, the defendant, who is the disposition agency, has sufficiently the opportunity to correct it by examining the above request for reinvestigation procedure as a pre-investigation procedure, and even if it cannot expect any conclusion different from the opinion expressed in the pre-investigation procedure, it again goes against the purport of establishment of the above system as a result of delaying the remedy for rights by imposing an unnecessary burden on landowners, etc., and thus it violates the purport of establishment of the above system.

As in the case of this case, when a landowner, etc. is dissatisfied with the determination of individual land price and goes through both a request for reexamination and an administrative appeal, the initial date of the request for reexamination shall be the date of receipt of the result of the request for reexamination. As seen earlier, the plaintiff's request for reexamination shall be effective as a pre-inspection procedure even if it is not clear whether the request for reexamination complies with the request period. According to the records, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on September 27, 1993 on the same day, and on December 6 of the same year, the above request for reexamination was filed on the same day, and it is obvious that the above request for reexamination was filed on December 6 of the same year within 1994, which is within 60 days, respectively, and if the above request for reexamination as a pre-inspection procedure was made within a lawful period, it shall be justified.

Although the court below should have judged the legitimacy of the litigation of this case by examining whether the request for reexamination of this case was made within the deadline for request under Article 12-2 of the Investigation Guidelines or Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, the court below did not examine the above facts on the erroneous premise that the plaintiff's request for reexamination of this case merely does not fall under the procedure for the transfer of authority because it was not within the meaning of demanding the defendant's ex officio request, and did not go through legitimate transfer of authority, and held that the lawsuit of this case unlawful because it did not go through legitimate transfer of authority, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the procedure for objection

(4) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)