Whether the provisions of the Administrative Appeals Act apply to the procedure for raising an objection against the adjudication of expropriation by the Land Tribunal, or whether Article 18 (6) of the Administrative Appeals Act applies to the case where the period of filing an objection is not notified in serving the original copy of the written adjudication of expropriation of land

(a) The procedures for raising objections to the expropriation ruling by the Land Tribunal have the nature of administrative appeal, so the provisions of the Administrative Appeals Act shall apply except as otherwise provided in the Land Expropriation Act.

B. In light of the provisions of Articles 73 and 74 of the Land Expropriation Act, the period of filing an objection against the expropriation ruling is not provided for in one month from the date of service of the original copy of the written ruling, but is not provided for in Articles 42(1) and 18(6) of the Administrative Appeals Act. Thus, if the other party did not notify the other party of the period of filing an objection in the course of service of the original copy of the written ruling, an objection may be filed within the period under Article 18(6) of the Administrative Appeals Act.

(a)Articles 73 and 74 of the Land Expropriation Act; (a) Articles 43(2)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Act, Article 18(6) and (3), and 42(1) of the same Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu206 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992)

Plaintiff

Central Land Tribunal and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu18790 delivered on December 10, 1991

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

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1, who is the implementer of the housing site development project (Seoul Western District), by his macro evidence, consulted with the Minister of Construction and Transportation in order to acquire the right to the land of this case, which is the owner of each of the land of this case, but the consultation did not lead to agreement, and that the defendant committee shall expropriate each of the land of this case on July 2, 1990, and that compensation for losses to the plaintiff shall be KRW 118,537,50 (hereinafter referred to as the "adjudication of expropriation") shall be dismissed on July 18, 1990, and if the plaintiff raised an objection after the expiration of the period for raising an objection on June 24, 1991, the court below rejected the objection under the provisions of Article 18 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act within the period of application of Article 18 of the same Act, and the plaintiff's appeal shall not be made within the period of application for expropriation under the provisions of Article 18 of the same Act.

2. However, since the procedures for raising an objection against the adjudication of expropriation by the Land Expropriation Committee have the nature of administrative appeal, the provisions of the Administrative Appeals Act shall apply except for those as provided otherwise by the Land Expropriation Act, and even in cases where special provisions are provided by other Acts with respect to the administrative appeal, matters not provided by other Acts shall be governed by this Act. Article 42(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that, in cases where an administrative agency makes a disposition in writing, it shall notify the other party of whether an administrative appeal may be filed with respect to the disposition, and the via the ruling authority in the case of filing a lawsuit, and the via the ruling authority in writing shall notify the other party of the procedure and the deadline for filing an administrative appeal, unless otherwise modified by other Acts, unless otherwise provided otherwise by other Acts. In particular, if an administrative agency does not notify the other party of the period for filing an appeal, the administrative appeal shall be deemed to have the obligation to notify the party of the provisional decision, the ruling authority, the transit procedure and the period for filing an appeal.

However, according to the provisions of Articles 73 and 74 of the Land Expropriation Act, the period of filing an objection against the expropriation ruling is not provided for in the provisions of Articles 42(1) and 18(6) of the Administrative Appeals Act except as provided for one month from the date of service of the original copy of the written ruling. Thus, if the other party did not notify the other party of the period of filing an objection in the service of the original written ruling, an objection may be filed within the period under the provisions of Article 18(6) of the Administrative Appeals Act pursuant to the provisions of Article 18(6) of the Administrative Appeals Act. The Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu5198 delivered on March 28, 198 and 90Nu1755 delivered on June 22, 190 set forth in the provisions of the Land Expropriation Act, which excludes the period of filing an objection against the expropriation ruling from the date of service of the original written ruling and the period of filing an objection against this ruling from the date of service of the original written ruling. The purport of Article 18(6) of the Administrative Appeals Act is excluded.

Therefore, the court below should make a decision on the legitimacy of the objection by clarifying whether the defendant committee notified the plaintiff of the period of filing an objection in the course of delivering the original copy of the written adjudication of acceptance to the court below. However, the court below's decision as above without the name should be made and the decision was made by the Administrative Appeals Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the argument on this point

In addition, in this lawsuit, the plaintiff is a co-defendant in addition to the defendant committee, who is the ruling authority, but according to the facts of the decision of the court below, the housing site development project operator, who is a business entity, is obviously not the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, and thus the above defendant mark is wrong

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)