[1] Where a farmland creation cost and exclusive charges are voluntarily paid, whether the disposition of revocation of imposition can be sought against the rural development corporation (negative)

[2] Whether an act of the competent agency to issue and deliver a certificate of the contents of the farmland creation cost and others when voluntarily pays the farmland creation cost and the diversion charge constitutes an administrative disposition (negative)

[3] Whether the consolidation of related claims under Article 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act requires that the original revocation lawsuit is lawful (affirmative)

[1] Where a person who has obtained a building permit under the condition that the farmland creation cost and exclusive charges should be paid receives a request from the competent authority for the payment of the farmland creation cost, etc. from the competent authority, and voluntarily pays the farmland creation cost, etc. to the competent authority, the Rural Development Corporation shall not be deemed to be the competent authority, unless the rural Development Corporation has made a decision on the imposition of the farmland creation cost, etc. and received the farmland creation cost, etc. from the competent

[2] When voluntarily paying the farmland creation cost and exclusive charges, the competent administrative agency issues a voluntary report and payment statement to the person liable for payment of the farmland creation cost, etc., or a written confirmation of the details of the farmland creation cost and exclusive charges due to consultation on farmland diversion, and the written confirmation, etc. shall not be deemed an administrative disposition imposing the farmland creation cost, etc. on the person liable for payment of the farmland creation cost and the written confirmation, etc.

[3] Since the consolidation of related claim lawsuits under Article 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act requires that the original revocation lawsuit be lawful, in a case where the original revocation lawsuit is dismissed due to its illegality, it shall be dismissed as it does not satisfy the requirements for the lawsuit.

[1] Article 13 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 4 of the former Farmland Conservation and Utilization Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 8 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Conservation and Use Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Conservation and Use Act, Presidential Decree No. 14835 of Dec. 22, 1995) (see Article 54 (6) of the current Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Conservation and Use Act), Article 8-4 (see Article 4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Conservation and Use Act, Article 45-2 of the Act on the Special Measures for Development of Farmland, Article 52-4 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Conservation and Use Act, Article 52-4 (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Conservation and Use Act, Article 25 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Conservation and Use Act (refer to Article 42 of the Farmland Conservation Act)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10478 delivered on November 15, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 100) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 78Nu90 delivered on April 22, 1980 (Gong1980, 12821) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu335 delivered on December 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 627)

Lee Jae-chul et al.

The Rural Development Corporation (Attorney Kim Jae-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu3631 delivered on August 25, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below acknowledged that, based on the evidence cited in the judgment, the plaintiffs paid the farmland creation cost and the exclusive use charge for the land of this case by the conditions of permission from the head of the office of North Korea in Busan Metropolitan City on the land of this case, and requested the payment of the farmland creation cost, etc. to the head of the above North North Korea at the time of receiving the inspection of the use for the new building, and voluntarily returned and paid the farmland creation cost, etc. to the head of the above North Korea's office, and the defendant did not impose a notice on the farmland creation cost of this case. Thus, the court below held that the plaintiffs' primary claim against the defendant seeking the disposition of revocation of imposition, such as the farmland creation cost, is unlawful, unless the defendant did not engage in the business of collecting the farmland creation cost of this case as well as the collection of the farmland creation cost of this case. In light of the records and the contents of related statutes, the above determination and

However, in the case of voluntary payment of the farmland creation cost, etc., even if the head of the above North Korea issued a written confirmation of the details of the farmland creation cost and the exclusive use charge according to the voluntary report and payment or consultation on the diversion of farmland to the plaintiffs, and issued such written confirmation, etc., the delivery of such written confirmation, etc. is merely a simple administrative act and cannot be deemed an administrative disposition imposing the farmland creation cost, etc. (refer to Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10478 delivered on November 15, 1996). The part of the judgment that the court below made that the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the imposition of farmland creation cost and other farmland creation cost should be filed against the above North Korea head, but

In addition, Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1296 Decided November 8, 1994 is related to a case for which the Rural Development Corporation has issued a payment notice, so it is not appropriate to invoke this case.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Since the consolidation of related claim lawsuits under Article 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act requires that the original revocation lawsuit should be lawful, if the original revocation lawsuit is dismissed on the grounds that it is unlawful, the joined claim should be dismissed as it lacks the requirements for the lawsuit.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiffs' claim for return of unjust enrichment is unlawful as long as the plaintiffs' primary claim is improper. Therefore, the ground of appeal that the land of this case is not subject to imposition of farmland creation cost, etc. is without merit without further determination.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)