(a) Where the validity of the subsequent disposition can be asserted on the grounds of defects in the prior disposition even where the prior disposition and the subsequent disposition aim at distinguishing effects independently;

B. Whether the illegality of the determination of the officially assessed individual land price, which is a prior disposition, can be asserted as an independent ground for illegality in an administrative litigation seeking revocation of an administrative disposition

A. Where two or more administrative dispositions are continually conducted, when one of them completes the legal effects of the preceding dispositions and the subsequent dispositions, the defect is succeeded to such preceding dispositions, so even if the preceding dispositions are not able to dispute the validity of the preceding dispositions due to the defect in the preceding dispositions, but where the preceding dispositions and the subsequent dispositions are aimed at a separate legal effect independently from each other, if it becomes impossible to dispute the validity of the preceding dispositions due to the defect in the preceding dispositions, it shall not be able to dispute the validity of the preceding dispositions on the ground of the defect in the preceding dispositions, except in a case where the defect in the preceding dispositions and the defect in the preceding dispositions are grave and obvious and it becomes impossible to dispute the validity of the preceding dispositions in principle, or even in a case where the preceding dispositions and the subsequent dispositions are for the purpose of distinguishing the effects of the preceding dispositions independently, it would be harsh that the defect in the preceding dispositions and the binding force of the preceding dispositions exceed the limit of admission to the person affected by them, and if the result is not foreseeable to the parties, it cannot be recognized that they are binding in light of the ideology of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to

B. The purpose of the determination of the officially assessed individual land price is to separate and separate legal effects from those of other taxation based on it. However, since the officially assessed individual land price is not individually notified to landowners or interested parties, it is difficult to presume that the land owners, etc. knew of the details of the determination of the publicly assessed individual land price, and it is not easy to predict whether the determined individual land price will act in favor of them or would act at a disadvantage. Moreover, in cases where specific disadvantages such as a long-term taxation have actually appeared, finding the way for remedy of rights can only be viewed as an infringement in light of the people’s awareness of rights. Considering that the land owner, etc.’s awareness of rights, it cannot be deemed to unfairly impose a high duty of care to demand correction through the determination of the officially assessed individual land price in preparation for the erroneous determination of the price of the land, and it is reasonable to compel the landowners, etc. to claim for any illegality in the determination of the publicly assessed individual land price after the determination of the publicly assessed individual land price should not be asserted in excess of the limit of tolerance, and thus, it can not be asserted an unlawful administrative litigation.

(a)Article 1 [general Administrative Disposition] and Article 19(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; Article 12 of the Guidelines for Joint Investigation of Land Prices (Prime No. 248) and

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu947 delivered on January 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 540) 91Nu4324 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 1317) 91Nu4567 delivered on February 9, 193 (Gong193Sang, 986)

Plaintiff

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu11796 delivered on February 24, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) In a case where two or more administrative dispositions are continually conducted, if one of the preceding dispositions and subsequent dispositions completes the legal effects of one of them, the defect is succeeded to the subsequent dispositions. Therefore, even if the preceding dispositions are not in dispute and their validity cannot be asserted, the validity of the subsequent dispositions can be asserted on the ground of the defect of the preceding dispositions. On the other hand, in a case where the preceding dispositions and subsequent dispositions independently aim at a separate legal effect, the validity of the preceding dispositions may not be asserted on the grounds of the defect of the preceding dispositions unless the defect of the preceding dispositions is grave and obvious.

However, even in cases where the preceding and subsequent dispositions are aimed at achieving separate effects independently, it would be harsh that the absence of the binding force or binding force of the preceding dispositions would exceed the tolerance limit (passing limit), and if the result is not foreseeable to the parties, it shall be reasonable to view that the binding force of the preceding dispositions cannot be recognized in light of the constitutional ideology guaranteeing the right of citizens to be tried.

(2) The officially assessed individual land price is based on Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act and Article 12 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. and its Enforcement Decree provide that no provision exists with respect to the determination and notification procedures of the officially assessed individual land price or objection procedures therefor, but Article 12(1) of the Guidelines on the Joint Investigation of Land Price, which is the Prime Minister’s order, provides that “if the land price calculated is determined as the price of individual land, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall without delay determine the land and the person who has an objection to the land price may make a re-audit request on the Eup/Myeon/Dong bulletin board, etc.” while Article 12-2(1) provides that “the landowner and interested person who have an objection to the individual land price may request the head of a Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the land

The purpose of the decision of the officially assessed individual land price is to separate and separate legal effects from those of taxation, etc. based on it. However, since the officially assessed individual land price is not individually notified to landowners or interested parties, it is difficult to presume that the land owners, etc. were aware of the decision of the officially assessed individual land price, and it is not easy to predict whether the determined individual land price will act in favor of themselves or would act at a disadvantage, and it is not easy to expect that the right to remedy the infringement should be guaranteed in cases where specific disadvantages, such as the future taxation, etc. are actually revealed. Considering that it is the awareness of the people's right, it is always possible to find the way to remedy the infringement. If the decision of the officially assessed individual land price was erroneous, it cannot be said that the landowner, etc. always demand the correction of the price of the land through the procedure of correction is unreasonable to impose a duty of care on the land owner, and it is not in line with the ideology of the Constitution and the right to property rights of the people.

Therefore, if there is an error in the decision of the officially assessed individual land price, it can be asserted as an independent cause of illegality in the administrative litigation to seek cancellation of the administrative disposition such as taxation, etc. based on this, it is reasonable to interpret that it can be argued as an independent cause of illegality.

(3) In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the officially assessed individual land price for the land of this case, which the plaintiff acquired on January 21, 1986 and transferred on October 10, 1990 as the standard market price at the time of transfer of the share of this case, was determined illegally as stated in its holding, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

(4) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)