A. In a case where the Land Tribunal’s disposition of expropriation of land is null and void, whether a lawsuit seeking nullification of the adjudication of expropriation itself can be filed (affirmative)

B. Whether each provision of Articles 73 through 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, which provides for the filing of an objection, applies to a case where the adjudication of acceptance itself becomes null and void as a matter of course (negative)

A. In a case where the expropriation ruling by the central or local land expropriation committee is null and void because it does not differ from the general administrative disposition in that it aims at a specific legal effect in terms of its nature, it is possible to seek confirmation of invalidity of the adjudication itself.

(b)With respect to each provision of Articles 73 through 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, a person who is dissatisfied with the ruling of expropriation by the central or local Land Expropriation Committee shall file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and an interpretation and application of the said ruling to file an administrative litigation against the said ruling, not the said ruling, shall be limited to the case where the cancellation of the ruling is sought on the ground that the ruling of expropriation is unlawful, not the said ruling of expropriation, and it shall not be interpreted as such even in the case where the said ruling of expropriation itself seeks nullification on the ground that it is unreasonable.

Articles 73, 74, 75, and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu3712 delivered on July 19, 1991

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case and the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiff is not included in the place of project execution as indicated in the judgment, the non-party Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City approves the implementation of the project on December 23, 1986 for the whole area including the above real estate, and the defendant issued a disposition of expropriation on February 23, 1991 to expropriate the above real estate on the basis of it. Thus, the above authorization disposition is an act for the purpose of an object which cannot be clearly deemed the object, and the defendant's disposition of expropriation on the basis thereof is also null and void, and thus the defendant's disposition of expropriation on the basis thereof is also null and void, the court below determined the legality of the lawsuit above

In other words, according to the provisions of Articles 73 through 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, a person who has an objection to the adjudication of expropriation by the central or local land expropriation committee shall file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee within one month from the date of service of the original copy of the written adjudication, and if the person is dissatisfied with the adjudication of the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the objection, he shall file an administrative lawsuit against the said disposition within one month from the date of service of the original copy of the written adjudication. In light of the purport of each of the above provisions, in the case of a lawsuit concerning land expropriation, only the objection can be subject to an administrative litigation, and the disposition of expropriation cannot be subject to an administrative litigation. In light of the purport of each of the above provisions, the said disposition shall not be subject to an administrative litigation, and it is reasonable to interpret the same as the case where the plaintiff seeks a confirmation of invalidity on the premise that the said disposition is unlawful as well as the case where he seeks a revocation on the premise that the said adjudication is null and void on February 23, 191.

2. However, where an administrative disposition is null and void, its effect does not naturally take effect from the beginning, and thus, unlike the case of seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition, it can seek the confirmation of nullity without going through the procedure of an administrative appeal or the period of filing a lawsuit. Thus, inasmuch as the adjudication of expropriation by the central or local land expropriation committee on the land expropriation is aimed at giving specific legal effects in its nature, it is not completely different from the general administrative disposition. Therefore, if the adjudication of expropriation is null and void, it shall be deemed that the adjudication itself can seek the confirmation of

If a person fails to file an objection within the prescribed period and thus cannot file a lawsuit or claim the invalidity, it would be a result of recognizing the recovery of defects in the invalid expropriation ruling as valid, and it would not be deemed that the inmate would be able to receive a remedy for infringement of rights, so it would be very unfair.

3. With respect to each provision of Articles 73 through 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, a person who is dissatisfied with the ruling of expropriation by the central or local Land Expropriation Committee shall file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and an interpretation and application of administrative litigation to file an objection against the said ruling not to be the ruling of expropriation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu1755, Jun. 22, 1990; 90Nu288, Feb. 12, 1991; 90Nu28, Feb. 12, 1991; 90Nu288, etc.) is limited to the case where the revocation of the ruling of expropriation of land is sought on the ground that the ruling of expropriation of land is unlawful, as in this case, it cannot be interpreted as such to the case where the adjudication of expropriation

As the procedure of filing an objection against the ruling of acceptance stipulated in the above provision is a kind of objection procedure against the original ruling and has the nature of administrative appeal, there is no reasonable ground to view that the above procedure should necessarily be followed even in the case of seeking confirmation of invalidity of the ruling of acceptance.

With regard to this point, the party members unlike this opinion among the 81Nu254 delivered on June 14, 1983, the Central Land Expropriation Committee, which is not the adjudication on an objection filed by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, presented the opinion that the lawsuit seeking nullification of the expropriation decision shall be deemed unlawful, since the adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee cannot be subject to administrative litigation. However, this part shall be discarded.

4. Ultimately, the court below's rejection of the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful, shall not be deemed to have committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the subject of administrative litigation or the litigation seeking nullification in the land expropriation, and since the grounds for appeal pointing this out, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)