The case where the adjudication of an administrative agency is judged not to be subject to an administrative litigation.

No administrative litigation shall be instituted against the ruling itself determined by the Minister of National Defense pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Requisitioned Property.

Article 7 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property

Plaintiff 1 and two others

The Minister of National Defense

Seoul High Court Decision 71Gu482-484 delivered on September 5, 1972

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined as follows. According to the original judgment, the court below filed an objection under Article 7 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitions with respect to each of the above real estate owned by the plaintiff et al. against the defendant, and the defendant filed an objection to change the purchase price among the above purchase decisions, and the defendant again filed an objection to seek nullification or revocation of the purchase price as long as the purchase price again decided in the above rulings falls short of the market price. The above rulings cannot be subject to administrative litigation unless otherwise provided for in the Act, and the decision seeking nullification or revocation is made only after the original disposition which is implemented as a result of the ruling is subject to administrative litigation, and it is obvious that the plaintiff et al.'s objection against the original purchase disposition is a decision made by the defendant in accordance with Article 7 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitions, which is improper, and thus, the court below's decision is not legitimate, and it is not erroneous as the second appeal against the plaintiff's second appeal against the above decision.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, in light of various evidence adopted when the original judgment recognizes that the assessment price set at the time when the original judgment rendered a decision to purchase this case is an adequate price, it cannot be viewed that there is any error in violation of the rules of evidence adopted by the court below in rejecting the appraisal result of the non-party appraiser Gap and the non-party appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraisal result compared to the records, even if the records are examined, the evidence consistent with the reasoning is rejected and there is no reason to argue that the court below's decision

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit at the same time with the main claim seeking confirmation of the purchase decision and the preliminary claim seeking revocation of the judgment, and the original judgment does not seem to have been judged to the same purport, and it cannot be deemed that there is no illegality in the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's claim claiming that the purchase decision is void as a matter of course is illegal as it did not comply with the period for filing the lawsuit. Next, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below is just that there is no reason for holding that the plaintiff's claim claiming that the purchase decision is void as a matter of course, and it does not require agreement between the owner of requisitioned property and the owner of requisitioned property in determining the purchase price of requisitioned property conducted by the Minister of National Defense in accordance with the interpretation of the Act on the Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisition of Requisition Property. Thus, there is no ground to view that there is an error in interpreting

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)