(a) Validity of expiration of a fixed period of disposition of reclamation permission;

(b) The validity of additional conduits to relocate or remove private seedlings and buildings in the area where the disposition of permission for the reclamation of forests and fields is taken;

C. The propriety of a disposition rejecting an application for completion inspection due to reclamation works within the said period solely on the grounds that the period of permission for reclamation expires.

A. Unless there exist special circumstances, such as extension of the period of permission for the reclamation of land, the validity of the permission for the reclamation of land cannot be terminated in the future after the lapse of the period of time. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the application for the extension of permission for the reclamation of land is impliedly accepted by the administrative agency after the expiration of the period of permission.

B. In the case of an administrative disposition on the vice versa, the contents of the vice-section shall be legitimate, and if it is obvious that the vice-section is unable to carry out it, and it is impossible to carry out it, the vice-section shall be null and void, or in making a beneficial disposition, such as the permission for the reclamation of forests and fields, the vice-section shall not be deemed null and void, even if it is impossible to remove the tombstone and buildings in the area where the land is reclaimed, and if the vice-section shall consult with the interested parties and the building in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and it shall not be deemed null and void.

C. A permit for completion of reclamation is a kind of confirmation act to verify whether the state of land created by the reclamation work is legitimate and the incidental conditions thereof. A person who obtained a permit for the reclamation is allowed to obtain a loan after authorization for completion and use a building on the reclaimed land and obtain a status to purchase it through a negotiated contract as well as to obtain a legal protection. As such, even after the expiration of the period of permission for the reclamation, a permit for the reclamation of land should be determined by examining whether the state of land created by the reclamation work during the period of permission for the reclamation is appropriate for the purpose of the permit for the reclamation and whether the additional imposed was performed, and the authorization for completion of the reclamation shall not be refused merely because the period of permission for the reclamation has expired.

(b)Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

Attorney above-at-law of the Seoul Real Name History Settlement Promotion Committee

The head of Gangdong-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu179 delivered on October 14, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the period of permission for the reclamation of the forest for this case based on macroficial evidence is from November 24, 1971 to May 23, 1972, and that the plaintiff applied for extension of the period of permission for reclamation to the defendant on June 20, 1972 in order to perform the burden of demolition, etc. of buildings in the area where the permission for the reclamation of the forest for this case expires after the period of permission for the reclamation of the forest for this case was expired. However, the defendant applied for extension of the period of permission for the reclamation of the forest for this case to the defendant on December 20, 1972, since the completion of the construction work for the reclamation of the forest for this case and the problem such as demolition of buildings is difficult to be resolved, the court below rejected the plaintiff's request on the premise that the permission for the reclamation of the forest for this case has expired as the period of permission expires on May 23, 1972.

Unless there are special circumstances such as extension of the period, etc., the disposition of permission for reclamation determined by the court below is valid in the sense that it cannot be conducted again after the expiration of the period unless there are other special circumstances such as the extension of the period. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and it cannot be concluded that the defendant urged the plaintiff to perform the burden of removal, etc. of buildings within the area of reclamation and that the application for permission for the extension of reclamation was accepted implicitly by the plaintiff alone. Thus, there is no argument as to this point.

2. The contents of the additional administrative disposition are legitimate, the implementation of which is possible, and if the defects are apparent and serious as it is impossible to carry out, the additional administrative disposition is deemed null and void. However, according to the records, the defendant, upon the plaintiff's application, shall remove 40 or more graves and 5 above ground buildings in the area to be reclaimed, under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and submit an application for completion inspection within 10 days after the completion of reclamation, and submit an application for completion inspection to the plaintiff within 10 days after the completion of reclamation, and thus, the 15 items of the additional administrative disposition are imposed on the plaintiff. The above additional administrative disposition cannot be viewed as legitimate or unjust for the plaintiff's construction and removal of the land for the purpose of removing the land under the premise that the permission for the reclamation of the land under the real name of the plaintiff to be executed cannot be seen as the removal of the land under the relevant administrative disposition or the land under the same condition as the land reclamation for the purpose of removing the land under the relevant administrative disposition or the land reclamation at the expense of the plaintiff.

3. According to the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant cancelled the permission for the reclamation of forest land to the plaintiff on August 11, 1976 by macroficing evidence, and rejected the plaintiff's request for construction completion of reclamation of forest land on the premise that the permission for the reclamation of forest land was executed at the time of the commencement of the reclamation of the land (Article 12, Article 3, and Article 14 (1) 2 of the Farmland Creation Act (Article 16 of the Act No. 1872 of Jan. 16, 196) and the permission for the reclamation of forest land on the premise that the loan of the State-owned land is stipulated as a premise of the permission for the reclamation of forest land on the condition that the loan of the land to the public-owned land was revoked and the permission for the reclamation of the land is no longer effective due to the expiration of the period of the above permission for the reclamation of the land on the condition that the permission for the reclamation of the land would not be deemed as an administrative disposition for the reclamation of the land on the condition of the reclamation of the land.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff filed an application for completion inspection on the land of this case for the defendant when the old-do police box adjacent to the land of this case was removed or relocated and when the access road was newly established on March 25, 1980. Accordingly, the defendant had already cancelled the loan agreement on the land of this case and the validity of the loan agreement had already expired since the period of permission for the land reclamation expires, and the plaintiff cannot conduct completion inspection on the land of this case for the reason that the removal of buildings within the land of this case has not yet been implemented. As such, among the reasons for the above rejection disposition, the reasons for cancellation of the loan agreement on the land of this case and the period of permission for the land reclamation has expired as seen above cannot be seen as the grounds for rejection of the above. Thus, since the plaintiff's rejection disposition cannot be viewed as illegal if the plaintiff rejected the application for completion inspection on the land of this case, it cannot be viewed as the grounds for rejection disposition for the above rejection disposition for the plaintiff's failure to implement the above disposition of this case as 1.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)