Even though the original written adjudication on an objection is not served, if the facts of the adjudication on the objection and the contents of the adjudication were known, whether the filing period of the administrative litigation is in progress (negative)

Article 75-2 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act provides that "if an objection is dissatisfied with a ruling on an objection, an administrative litigation may be instituted within one month from the date on which the written ruling is served." Thus, even though the plaintiff, the owner of the land to be expropriated who is the land to be expropriated who has raised an objection against the ruling by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, received a written ruling from a third party who is the owner of other land, and could have known the fact of the ruling on his objection by receiving the increased amount of compensation deposited, and the contents of the ruling, the period of filing an administrative litigation against the ruling on objection cannot be deemed to have been in progress, notwithstanding the absence of the service

Article 75-2 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

The Central Land Tribunal and one other, the Defendants Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu10058 delivered on October 25, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

1. The court below, on October 19, 1989, rendered a ruling to expropriate the instant land owned by the plaintiff as incorporated in the Housing Site Development Plan for Seoul Central Land Expropriation Zone 2. Upon the plaintiff's filing of an objection against the said ruling, the Central Land Expropriation Committee partially accepted the plaintiff's objection and rendered a ruling to increase the compensation amount to KRW 195,967,50. The original written ruling against the non-party 1 was delivered by the defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee to the plaintiff by mistake while serving the original ruling against the non-party 1. The plaintiff received it on May 4, 1990, again returned the original written ruling to the plaintiff on the ground that the original ruling against the non-party 1 was not the original written ruling against the non-party 5. The court below determined that the plaintiff's receipt of the above written ruling against the non-party 1 was a specific copy of the above written ruling against the non-party 1, who was the owner of the land incorporated in the Housing Site Development Project for Seoul Central Land Expropriation Zone 5.

2. However, Article 75-2(1) of the Land Expropriation Act provides, “In a case where there is an objection against a ruling on an objection, an administrative litigation may be instituted within one month from the date of delivery of the written ruling.” Thus, even if the Plaintiff, the owner of the land to be expropriated who has filed an objection against a ruling by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, could have known the facts of the ruling on his objection and the contents of the ruling on the objection, as shown in the judgment of the court below, it cannot be said that the period of filing an administrative litigation against the ruling on the objection is in progress unless the written ruling (original copy

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, unlike this opinion, judged that the plaintiff's decision on his objection was made and the contents of the decision on his objection were known, the period for filing administrative litigation on the decision on the objection is in progress, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the period for filing the objection under Article 75-2 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act, and it is obvious that such illegality is affected by the judgment.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)