(a) Legal character and validity of approval for projects under Articles 14 and 16 of the Land Expropriation Act;

(b) Definition of the public announcement of land tax items;

(c) Whether it is necessary to give public notice of land tax when a project operator, other than an administrative agency, expropriates land, buildings, etc. within an urban planning zone (affirmative);

(d) Omission of the public announcement of land tax items at the time of publicly announcing the permission for urban planning projects, and cancellation of such expropriation and ruling;

(a)project authorization under Articles 14 and 16 of the Land Expropriation Act has the nature of an administrative disposition that establishes a right to expropriate on condition that it should go through a certain procedure thereafter, and the authorization has become effective as a kind of right under public law, the scope of the object to be expropriated is determined by obtaining the authorization and the right to expropriate can be set and the right can be set up against the present and future right holder on the object;

(b) A public notice of the particulars of land is an act of temporarily determining the object which can be specifically expropriated within the extent designated by the project approval, and thereby it is realistic and concrete that the project approval has not been effective only on the object.

(c)in respect of the purpose of the provisions of Article 29 of the Urban Planning Act and Articles 14 and 16 of the Land Expropriation Act, the land tax item should be publicly notified even in cases where a project operator, other than an administrative agency, expropriates the land, buildings, etc. needed for the project within an urban planning zone;

D. At the time of announcement of permission for an urban planning project, the omission of the notice of land tax items at the time of announcement is due to procedural illegality, which is merely a reason for revocation, and the project approval itself cannot be deemed null and void due to a significant and apparent defect. Therefore, if such illegality was not contested at the project approval phase, which is a prior disposition, if the period of litigation has already lapsed, then the revocation of the disposition of expropriation and ruling cannot be sought on the ground that the above illegal illegality of permission for an urban planning project

(a)Article 14, article 16(c) of the Land Expropriation Act, article 24 of the Urban Planning Act, article 25(1)(d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act;

(a) Supreme Court Decision 87Nu395 delivered on September 8, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu6 delivered on December 27, 1988

Attorney Kang Jong-chul, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant for the defendant-appellant 1

Attorney Choi Byung-hoon et al., Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu780 delivered on November 13, 1987

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, in implementing an urban planning project (foreign language university facilities in Korea) with the permission of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the court below revoked the above expropriation ruling on the ground that the non-party educational foundation's expropriation was invalidated because the non-party educational foundation's expropriation agreement was not reached with the above non-party educational foundation's expropriation decision on the ground that the project approval was not publicly announced on September 16, 1985 by the defendant, and that the non-party educational foundation added the land of this case, including the land of this case and the land of king-ri, which is the location of forest trees, to the urban planning project zone, and announced the last alteration announcement on December 22, 1984. The non-party educational foundation omitted the land tax in this case. The non-party educational foundation decided that the above non-party educational foundation's expropriation decision was revoked on the ground that the land of this case's expropriation to the above non-party educational foundation's expropriation decision became invalid, and that the approval of this case's expropriation decision was null and void.

2. The project approval pursuant to Articles 14 and 16 of the Land Expropriation Act shall be based on the nature of the administrative disposition that establishes a certain right of expropriation on condition that it shall go through a certain procedure thereafter. The project approval shall have the effect of a right under public law, the scope of the object to be expropriated is determined and the right to be expropriated can be set up and the right to be expropriated can be set up against the present and future right holder (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu395 delivered on September 8, 1987). The public notice of the items of land shall be an act of temporarily determining the object to be expropriated within the scope designated by the project approval, and the project approval shall be realized and concrete only with the remote effect of the object which has not been granted (i.e., the land to be expropriated and expropriated, the land to be used shall be determined by the adjudication, or finally the land to be used shall be determined by the adjudication).

Meanwhile, according to Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 25(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, if a person who is not an administrative agency is a project operator, the land tax item is not specified in the matters to be publicly notified by the head of the Si/Gun in the matters to be notified by the head of the Si/Gun, but if a project operator other than an administrative agency expropriates the land, buildings, etc. necessary for the project within the urban planning zone (Articles 29 and 30 of the Urban Planning Act, Articles 14 and

However, when applying for permission to implement an urban planning project, a person who is not an administrative agency is required to attach a location map and a planning plan, construction drawings, construction drawings, records of land or buildings to be used or expropriated, lot number and land category, and a detailed statement of rights other than ownership (Article 24(1) of the Urban Planning Act and Article 25(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). In granting permission to implement the said urban planning project by the head of a Si/Gun, the head of a Si/Gun shall make a copy of the relevant documents available in advance to the public for inspection and provide the owners of land or buildings, etc. and interested parties with an opportunity to submit their written opinions (Article 25-2 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 27-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 27-2 of the same Act). In addition, considering the legal nature of the notice of land tax notice as seen earlier,

Therefore, such illegality should have been disputed at the above project approval phase, which is the preceding disposition, and even if there exists such illegality in the permission for the instant urban planning project based on the power of dispute over the pertinent disposition, which is subsequent to the lapse of the period of litigation, even though there is no illegality as above in the permission for the instant urban planning project due to the lack of dispute over the pertinent disposition, it cannot be claimed to revoke the disposition for expropriation (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu395 delivered on September 8, 197).

However, the court below held that the omission of the notice of land tax item at the stage of permission for the urban planning project in this case from the opposing view is a grave and obvious defect and thus the permission for the urban planning project is null and void as a matter of course, and revoked the defendant's decision disposition in this case, there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the public notice of permission for the urban planning project

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)