Legal nature of the disposition of issuing the substitute lot settlement money and whether it is an administrative disposition subject to judicial review conducted separately after a replotting disposition becomes final.

Since a land substitution disposition is also included in a land substitution disposition according to a land substitution plan under the Land Substitution Adjustment Act, a land substitution disposition cannot be separately made after a land substitution disposition becomes final and conclusive. Therefore, the land substitution disposition in this case is merely a decision of the amount of damages equivalent to the liquidation money suffered by the landowner due to the confirmation of land substitution without a decision of the settlement money. Therefore, it cannot be said that the land substitution

Articles 46(2)3 and 62(5) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

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

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu964 delivered on October 24, 1985

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

Since the land substitution disposition in a land substitution project is included in a land substitution disposition according to a land substitution plan, the land substitution disposition cannot be separately made after a land substitution disposition becomes final and conclusive. Therefore, since the land substitution disposition in this case becomes final and conclusive without a decision on the payment of the liquidation money, it is merely a determination of the compensation amount per land owned by the landowner, so it cannot be said that it is an administrative disposition subject to judicial review.

This is because the decision to grant the liquidation money for replotting is determined in the land substitution plan when the land among the land in the land in the land substitution project execution district is determined or excluded from the land subject to the determination or the disposal is determined in cash (Article 46 (2) 3 of the Land substitution and Rearrangement Project Act). As the land to issue the settlement money is to be determined and publicly announced at the time of the land substitution disposition (Article 62 (5) of the same Act), the land substitution disposition is to be publicly announced at the time of the land substitution disposition because the land substitution disposition is notified of the matters prescribed in the land substitution plan to the land owner and is determined by public announcement, so if the land substitution disposition is publicly announced without the land substitution disposition to issue the settlement money to the land owner as a matter of course, the land substitution disposition becomes final and conclusive without the decision

Therefore, as determined by the court below, in the implementation of a land readjustment project as determined by the court below, if the land owned by the plaintiff, which is the land in the district, falls under the latter part of Article 53 (2) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act (Act No. 1822 of Aug. 3, 196) which was enforced at the time of the execution of the land readjustment project as determined by the court below, and the project was implemented according to the land substitution plan established on Feb. 5, 1970 without designating the land substitution and the decision was made to deliver the land substitution settlement money as the land substitution settlement money for the above land after the above disposal announcement was made, and the above land substitution settlement payment decision was decided to be paid as the land substitution settlement money for the above land after the above disposal announcement was made, the above land substitution settlement payment decision was ultimately decided without the decision to pay the liquidation money to the plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to judicial review.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s order to revoke the instant disposition by deeming the instant disposition as an administrative disposition, and examining the propriety of the content of the disposition, does not adversely affect the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the disposition to deliver the land substitution settlement money.

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)