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

(b) Period for filing a request for reinspection or administrative appeal against the determination of individual land price;

A. It is possible for landowners and interested persons to institute an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act or to institute an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act after being notified of the result by filing a request for reinvestigation without filing a request for reinvestigation on the determination of individual land price, and those who received notice of the result of reinvestigation by filing a request for reinvestigation on the determination of individual land price can institute an administrative litigation immediately without going through separate administrative appeals procedures.

B. In the determination of individual land price, the determination of individual land price shall be announced on the bulletin board of Eup/Myeon/Dong in the manner of notification of the determination of individual land price in accordance with the provisions of the Guidelines for Joint Investigation into Land Price (Prime No. 248 of the Prime Minister Directive), and the effect of the determination of individual land price shall take effect for each landowner or owner respectively. Thus, although the public notification of individual land price determination takes effect from the date of public notification, it cannot be deemed that the landowner and interested person were aware of the individual land price determination at the date of public notification, the deadline for filing a reinvestigation or an administrative appeal for the determination of individual land price should be calculated from the date when the other party to the disposition became aware of the fact that the other party to the disposition was actually aware of the disposition. However, unless the head of Si/Gun/Gu does not take a separate procedure for notifying the other party of the determination of individual land price, a request for reinvestigation or administrative appeal against the determination of individual land price shall be filed within 180 days from the date of the disposition under Article 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act.

Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 18(1) and 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, and Article 12-2 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices (Prime Minister’s Directive 248)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Metropolitan Government Head of Gangnam-gu Office of General Law, Attorney Ga-Ba, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu6312 delivered on October 8, 1992

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: the defendant calculated the price of individual land as of January 1, 1991 in accordance with Article 10 of the Act on the Publication of Land Prices and Evaluation of Land, etc. as of January 1, 1991, and calculated the price of individual land as of January 1, 1991 and announced the price as 5,70,000/m2 as of January 1, 199 and determined as the fact that there is no dispute between the parties concerned; the plaintiff sought cancellation of the determination of the price of individual land as of January 1, 1991 and a new determination of the price of individual land as of January 1, 1991; the plaintiff did not request a reinvestigation under Article 12-2 of the Guidelines on the Joint Investigation of Land Price of the individual land as of January 1, 1991, and the defendant filed an administrative appeal after the lapse of 60 days under Article 18(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act.

First of all, when comprehensively considering the provisions of Articles 6 through 12-2 of the above Directives, a re-audit claim is a series of procedures for re-audit within the land price determination procedure, and it cannot be regarded as a kind of administrative appeal, because it is merely a series of internal processes for the land price determination procedure, and the method of appeal against the individual land price determined should undergo the administrative appeal procedure provided for in the Administrative Appeals Act. As such, the defendant's defense that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful is without merit. Next, as to whether the plaintiff et al. filed an administrative appeal against the individual land price determination of this case within the lawful period of time under the Administrative Appeals Act, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff et al. of the individual land price determination of this case in this case. Since the plaintiff et al. did not submit an administrative appeal against the above individual land price determination of this case within 60 days after the date of the above public notice, it cannot be seen that the above individual land price determination of the plaintiff et al. should not be applied to the above individual land price determination of the above 10 days after the public notice.

2. In addition, it is possible for landowners and interested persons to institute an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act or institute an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act after being notified of the result by filing a request for re-audit without filing a request for re-audit of the determination of individual land price. A person who has filed a request for re-audit of the determination of individual land price and received notice of the result of re-audit may immediately institute an administrative litigation without undergoing a separate procedure.

This is because Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a suit for cancellation may be filed without going through an adjudication on it if it is possible to bring an administrative appeal on the disposition concerned under the provisions of the Act. Article 3(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that an administrative appeal may be filed against a disposition or omission by an administrative agency, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts. Meanwhile, Article 12(1) of the above Directive provides that the head of Si/Gun/Gu shall announce the fact of determining the price of individual land on the bulletin board of Eup/Myeon/Dong at the same time that a person who has an objection to the land price may file an administrative appeal, at the same time, and shall announce the fact that a re-audit may be filed and the method of filing an appeal. Accordingly, in comparison with the above provision of Article 12-2 of the Administrative Appeals Act that provides detailed provisions concerning the re-audit request system, it shall be more than 60 days after the date of filing an administrative appeal request (60 days after the date of knowing that there is an administrative appeal request) and the same period of re-audit under the same provision of Article 34(2) of the Administrative Appeals Act.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that the re-examination claim cannot be seen as a kind of administrative appeal because it is only a series of internal processes of the land price determination procedure cannot be seen as an administrative appeal. It cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the re-examination claim and the administrative litigation procedure, but it does not dispute this point, but it is a matter of ex officio investigation.

3. According to Article 18(1) and (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, an administrative appeal claim shall be filed within 60 days from the date on which the disposition is known, and no appeal shall be filed after the lapse of 180 days from the date on which the disposition is made, unless there are justifiable grounds. According to Articles 12(1) and 12-2(1) of the above Directive, when the head of a Si/Gun/Gu determines the price of individual land, he/she shall, without delay, announce the fact that the land price was determined and the details that a person who has an objection to the land price may make a re-audit on the Eup/Myeon/Dong bulletin board, etc., and the person who has an objection to the land price may request re-audit of the land price to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu within 60 days from the date on

In ordinary cases where an administrative disposition is taken through a public notice or announcement, the period for filing an administrative appeal shall be calculated by deeming that the other party to the disposition is an unspecified number of people and that there was an administrative disposition on the date of public notice or public announcement because the effect of the disposition is uniformly applied to many and unspecified persons. However, in determining the price of individual land, in accordance with the provisions of the above order, the determination of the price of each individual land on the Eup/Myeon/Dong bulletin board is made en bloc for the determination of the price of each individual land on the administrative convenience in accordance with the provisions of the above order, and the effect of the disposition is effective for each owner of each land or each owner respectively. Therefore, considering the special nature of the determination of the price of individual land, it is inappropriate to make the above general public notice or public announcement in determining the initial date of the period for filing an administrative appeal. Therefore, even if the public notice of the determination of the price of individual land takes effect from the date of public notice, it cannot be deemed that

Ultimately, the period of request for reinvestigation or administrative appeal against the determination of individual land price should be calculated from the date on which the other party to the disposition actually becomes aware of such disposition, and therefore, the phrase "the date on which the individual land price has been determined" as provided in Article 12-2 (1) of the above Directive shall be interpreted as above. However, unless the head of a Si/Gun/Gu fails to notify the other party of the determination of individual land price separately to the other party to the disposition, the case where the landowner and the interested party were aware of such disposition shall not be sealed. Thus, unless there are circumstances to deem that the above disposition was known, a request for reinvestigation or administrative appeal against the determination of individual land price shall be filed within 180 days from the date on which the disposition as provided in Article 18

However, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendant publicly announced the price of individual land of this case on June 29, 191, and the plaintiff et al. filed an administrative appeal on November 6 of the same year, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff et al. was aware of the above disposition 60 days retroactively from the date of the above request for administrative appeal, and it is apparent that the plaintiff et al. filed an administrative appeal within 180 days from the date of the above disposition. Thus, the above request for administrative appeal itself is filed within the period under Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act and is legitimate.

However, according to the records, the ruling authority on the above administrative appeal sent a written ruling dismissing the above administrative appeal to the plaintiff, etc. on January 13, 1992, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on March 16 of the same year. Since the date on which the plaintiff, etc. was served with the above written ruling is unclear, the court below should have judged the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case by examining it after the decision of the court below. However, the court below determined that the above administrative appeal claim by the plaintiff, etc. was filed 60 days under Article 18 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act due to the lack of legitimate prior trial procedure due to the reasons stated in its reasoning. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the initial date of the administrative appeal request period under the Administrative Appeals Act or by failing to exhaust all deliberation on the date of receiving the written ruling on administrative appeal by the plaintiff, etc., or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation on the date of receiving the written ruling on administrative appeal, it is clear that this point has affected

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)