In a case where a ruling on an objection is made under the Land Expropriation Act, whether a civil action may be brought to seek the payment of compensation for losses recognized by the said ruling or not

When an administrative litigation is not filed or an adjudication is finalized on other grounds within one month from the date of delivery of the written adjudication on an objection under Article 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, it shall be deemed that there has been a final and conclusive judgment under the Civil Procedure Act, and the original of the adjudication shall have the same effect as the original of the judgment with executory power, and there is no benefit of lawsuit seeking the payment of compensation for losses recognized by the above adjudication, unless there are special circumstances.

Article 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Plaintiff 3 and five others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na2729 delivered on March 14, 1973

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff and the defendants' representative's grounds of appeal are first determined ex officio before viewing them.

Considering the reasoning of the original judgment, Gap evidence 1-2 (each judgment), evidence 6 (the original copy of the written decision), and evidence 4 (the original copy of the written decision) at that time in light of the whole purport of the parties' pleadings, the defendant market price applied for the adjudication to the Central Land Expropriation Committee in order to expropriate the land owned by the plaintiff 1, 2, and the non-party (other than the above plaintiffs' heir of property) in order to implement road expansion projects from Seoul Station around August 1968 to Southerndong-dong. The above committee filed an objection to the original adjudication on the nine days of that month, and filed an objection with the same committee. The above committee rejected the objection on April 18, 1969, and the above committee rejected the above judgment on the non-party's appeal, and the Seoul High Court rejected the administrative litigation again and received the judgment from the Seoul High Court on August 23, 1971 to the remaining 197.

However, according to Article 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, if there is an objection against the adjudication on an objection, an administrative litigation may be instituted within one month from the date of service of the written adjudication, and if no lawsuit is filed within one month or the adjudication on an objection is confirmed due to other reasons, it shall be deemed a final and conclusive judgment under the Civil Procedure Act, and the original copy of the adjudication shall have the same effect

Therefore, if the original copy of the re-adjudication at issue in this case was not filed within one month after being served on the plaintiff and the defendants, the re-adjudication is finalized, and if the re-adjudication becomes final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that there has been a final and conclusive judgment under the Civil Procedure Act, and the original copy of the re-adjudication will have the same effect as the original copy of the judgment with executory power. If so, in this case, the plaintiffs who already hold the original copy of the re-adjudication (14-163 out of the annexed lot number indication of the judgment No. 6 in the annexed Table No. 14-136 in the ruling No. 6, which is the ruling of this case, seems to be a clerical error of 14-136 in the above re-adjudication, there is no interest to bring a lawsuit seeking the payment of compensation for losses recognized in the above re-adjudication unless there is any special reason to the contrary, and thus, it shall be dismissed and dismissed. The judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court prior to its final judgment.

Justices Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)