1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff, a representative of the Plaintiff, donated approximately 4.3 million square meters of land adjacent to Gwangju Metropolitan City, which was inherited from his father, to the Republic of Korea on the condition that he returns it at the time of closure. The Plaintiff asserted that, although the school was closed and the above land was owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff suffered property damage by the registration of another person’s name was made in violation of the public official of the registry office of the Gwangju District Court

On April 24, 2015, the Gwangju District Compensation Council rendered a decision to dismiss the above application on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the above dismissal decision.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are legitimate, and even if the State or local government is liable for damages caused by a tort committed by a public official's official on duty, the State Compensation Act, which is a special law for civil liability, shall also be applied to the state or local government. And a lawsuit for compensation under the same Act may be brought only after the decision of the Compensation Council's payment of damages or dismissal thereof is made. The above decision of the Compensation Council under the main sentence of Article 9 of the same Act is merely a pre-determination requirement prior to the above civil liability liability for damages. Thus, the decision of the Compensation Council shall not be deemed an administrative disposition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 80Nu317 delivered on February 10, 1981). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was brought against the rejection ruling of the Gwangju District Compensation Council, which cannot be a legitimate administrative litigation.

In conclusion, the instant lawsuit is inappropriate, and thus, it is decided to dismiss it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.