Requirements for filing administrative litigation on land expropriation under the Urban Planning Act;

Any person who is dissatisfied with any adjudication rendered by the competent land expropriation committee under the Urban Planning Act, may not file an administrative litigation until the Central Land Expropriation Committee raises an objection against it and has gone through such adjudication.

Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Urban Planning Act; Articles 25, 74, 75, and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 2(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Nu132 Delivered on November 30, 1971

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Busan City Mayor (Attorney Seo-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu242 delivered on June 26, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to Article 29 (1) of the Urban Planning Act, an executor of an urban planning project may expropriate or use the land, buildings, or fixtures on the land within the urban planning zone. According to Article 30 (1) of the same Act, the Land Expropriation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation or use under the preceding Article. On the other hand, according to Article 25 of the Land Expropriation Act, public project operators shall consult with the landowner and person concerned so as to acquire or extinguish the right to the land. If an agreement is not reached or is impossible, an objection may be filed with the competent Land Expropriation Committee. According to Articles 73 and 74 of the same Act, a person who is dissatisfied with the adjudication of the competent Land Expropriation Committee (the same shall apply to a person who is dissatisfied with the adjudication of the Central Land Expropriation Committee) who fails to lawfully file an objection against the original adjudication of the said City Expropriation Committee within one month after being served with the competent Land Expropriation Committee (the same shall apply to the person who is dissatisfied with the adjudication of the said Land Expropriation Committee). According to Article 75-2 of the same Act, the said Act, he/she shall be deemed to have an objection against the original adjudication within one month.

As such, the first issue of appeal is without merit.

With respect to the second ground:

This claim is seeking the cancellation of the defendant's disposition of acceptance adjudication, and it is apparent by the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's lawsuit does not dispute the defendant's notice of the land price. Thus, even if the plaintiff raised an objection against the defendant's notice of land price, it cannot be said that it is a prior procedure for this lawsuit as an objection, so there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment below.

The essay is groundless.

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 Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)

Justices Seo Jae-tae (Presiding Justice) who is unable to sign and affix a seal on overseas business trip.