[1] The legal nature of the period for filing a lawsuit under Article 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act (=the period for filing a lawsuit) and whether it is possible to complete the period (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the original copy of a written objection by the Central Land Tribunal has been delivered to a person living together with the landowner, whether the party could not be able to comply with the filing period due to a cause not attributable to the landowner, such as withdrawal, etc. (negative)

[1] In full view of the provisions of Articles 73, 74, and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, when there is an objection against the original adjudication by the competent Land Expropriation Committee within one month from the date of service of the original copy of the said adjudication, and when there is an objection against the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, an administrative litigation seeking cancellation of the said adjudication shall be filed within one month from the date of service of the original copy of the said adjudication. In this case, the provisions of Article 20 of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 4770 of Jul. 27, 1994) concerning the period of filing the lawsuit shall not be applied, but the provisions of Article 20 of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 470 of Mar. 1, 1998) concerning the nature of the period of filing the lawsuit shall not be applied to the cases where the party fails to comply with the special provisions of Article 20 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act within one week from the date of service of the original copy of the adjudication.

[2] Where a landowner has made an objection against the adjudication of expropriation and the Central Land Tribunal has dismissed the objection, and the original copy of the written adjudication is delivered to the person living together with the same owner, it does not constitute a case where the party could not comply with the period of filing a lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to him/her, on the sole ground that the above owner was immediately aware of the fact of service due to the reason such as withdrawal

[1] Articles 73, 74, and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 20 of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 4770 of July 27, 1994); Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 73, 74, and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 20 of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 4770 of March 1, 1998); Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Central Land Tribunal and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu47226 delivered on March 18, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 73, 74 and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, when there is an objection against the original adjudication by the competent Land Expropriation Committee, an objection shall be filed with the Central Land Expropriation Committee within one month from the day on which the original copy of the written adjudication is served, and when there is an objection against the adjudication on an objection by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, an administrative litigation seeking cancellation of the said adjudication shall be filed within one month from the day on which the original copy of the written adjudication is served, and in this case, the provisions of Article 20 of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 4770 of July 27, 1994 and enforced on March 1, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply) concerning the period for filing the lawsuit may not be applied to the party members established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9312, Aug. 18, 192; since Article 20(3) of the former Land Expropriation Act concerning the period for filing the lawsuit cannot be applied mutatis mutandis under Article 20(3).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the Chief of Staff of the Army, which belongs to the Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of Korea, as the executor of the national defense and military installations project, received a ruling of expropriation on April 18, 1997 to acquire the land of this case owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff dissatisfied with the above ruling and raised an objection to the Central Land Expropriation Committee on September 26, 1997. The Central Land Expropriation Committee made a ruling of objection to dismiss the plaintiff's objection (hereinafter "the ruling of this case") on September 26, 1997 that the original written ruling of this case was delivered to the plaintiff's domicile on October 9, 1997 and received by the non-party living together as the plaintiff's wife. The judgment of the court below was just and justified for the reason that the plaintiff could not immediately be seen as being responsible for the plaintiff's remaining living together, since the original written ruling of this case was sent to the plaintiff's address and it cannot be seen as unlawful for the above reasons.

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)