[1] Whether the binding force of the decision of transfer in violation of the jurisdiction of the court in the upper instance reaches the higher court (negative)

[2] The case rejecting the administrative litigation on the increase in the amount of compensation for losses on the ground that it does not meet the procedures and requirements under the Land Expropriation Act

[1] The binding force of the decision of transfer in violation of the jurisdiction of the court in the same instance shall not extend only to the court in the same instance and to the court in the lower court.

[2] The administrative litigation on an increase or decrease in the amount of compensation in the procedure of expropriation under the Land Expropriation Act is a procedure for consultation under Article 25(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, and its objection is raised after the expropriation ruling and its objection are made, and in case where there is an objection against the said ruling, a claim is filed for the cancellation of the said ruling and the payment of increased amount of compensation to a joint defendant in addition to the ruling authority. Since the lawsuit in this case is obviously unlawful since it does not meet the procedure

[1] Article 34 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 25, 25-3, 73, 74, 75, and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 94Ma1059, 1060 decided May 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2216) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 79Nu224 decided May 27, 1980 (Gong1980, 1287) Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8187 decided June 12, 1990 (Gong190, 1477)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Lee Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Metropolitan City (Attorney Kim In-bok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 94Gu4233, 4240 delivered on May 10, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The binding force of the decision of transfer in violation of the court jurisdiction shall not extend only to the court of the same instance and to the court of higher instance (see Supreme Court Order 94Ma1059, 1060, May 15, 1995). Thus, the court of original instance to whom the instant case was transferred on the ground that it belongs to the subject of administrative litigation by the Busan District Court Order 93Ma353, 9277, June 30, 1994, where it is deemed that the instant case belongs to the subject of civil litigation, should have been transferred to the Busan District Court again.

However, since the plaintiffs clearly state their title to the claim in this case is seeking the payment of the amount of business loss compensation pursuant to Article 51 of the Land Expropriation Act (the 20th oral argument in the court below dated April 12, 1995), the content of this case is about the increase or decrease of the amount of compensation in the procedure for expropriation, such as land, and it is clear that this case is subject to administrative litigation.

Therefore, although there is a question as to whether the plaintiffs' claim of this case is an administrative litigation matter, it is not appropriate that the court below explained that it is judged in the court below according to the binding force of the transfer decision as stipulated in Article 34 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act because the case was transferred from the Busan District Court on the ground that it belongs to the subject of administrative litigation, but its conclusion is justifiable in determining the case as the subject of administrative litigation. The part of the grounds of appeal on this point

2. The administrative litigation on the increase or decrease of the amount of compensation in the procedure of expropriation under the Land Expropriation Act is a procedure for consultation under Article 25(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, and its objection is raised after the expropriation ruling and its objection are made, and thereafter, a joint defendant is sought to revoke his adjudication and pay an increased amount of compensation. According to the records, the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is obviously not equipped with the procedure and requirements. Thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful. Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case without dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case on account of its illegality, and dismissed the plaintiffs' claim. The part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the Supreme Court is sufficient to render a direct judgment, so the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)