[1] The meaning of an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation

[2] Whether a land substitution plan is an administrative disposition subject to appeal (negative)

[3] The purport of the provisions of Articles 33 and 47 of the Land Readjustment Project Act, and, in case where applying for authorization by modifying a land substitution plan in accordance with the opinions of interested parties, such as land owners, etc. presented in the initial public inspection process, whether the modified contents should be made public (affirmative)

[4] The validity of a disposition of designating a land substitution plan to be established after authorization of a land substitution plan pursuant to the modified contents without undergoing the procedure for public inspection by interested parties, such as land owners (i.e., invalidation thereof)

[5] Whether nullification of an administrative disposition and a selective consolidation or simple consolidation of a claim for revocation are allowed (negative)

[6] The time when the benefit of an appeal suit against the designation disposition of the land scheduled for substitution is extinguished (=public notice of the land substitution disposition)

[7] Requirements for establishing an administrative disposition

[1] The disposition of an administrative agency, which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to, in principle, an act of an administrative agency under public law, which is an act directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or directly causing other legal effects on a specific matter. Thus, an act that does not cause a direct legal change in the legal status of the other party or the person concerned, such as internal

[2] According to the provisions of Articles 57 and 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, the designation of a land scheduled for substitution or a disposition of replotting, which directly changes the rights and duties of landowners, etc., so it can be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation. However, a land substitution plan merely serves as the ground for the aforementioned designation of a land scheduled for substitution or the disposition of replotting, but does not directly change the legal status of landowners, etc., or do not directly involve any other unique legal effect than the designation of a land scheduled for substitution

[3] The purpose of Article 47 and Article 33 of the Land Substitution Adjustment Act is to allow interested parties, such as land owners, etc. to submit their written opinions by making relevant documents available prior to an application for authorization of a land substitution plan. The purpose of the provision is to reflect the opinions of many interested parties in the land substitution plan in formulating a land substitution plan and to rationally adjust their mutual interests. Thus, in cases where the interested parties present their opinions during the initial public perusal process and intend to apply for authorization by modifying the land substitution plan accordingly, the procedure for public inspection of the modified contents should be followed.

[4] After the authorization of a replotting plan is granted, the designation of a replotting plan pursuant to the modified contents without taking any procedure for public perusal as to the matters to be determined according to the opinions presented by interested parties, such as landowners, etc., after the initial process of public perusal of the replotting plan is null and void as it did not follow the replotting plan or did not lawfully alter the replotting

[5] A claim for nullification and revocation of an administrative disposition is a claim incompatible with one another, which can be joined only in the primary and preliminary claims, and a consolidation or simple consolidation as a selective claim is not allowed.

[6] Since the disposition of designating a land as a planned land substitution becomes effective only by the date of the public announcement of a land substitution disposition, if the disposition of replotting is effective, the interest in the lawsuit will lapse.

[7] In general, where an administrative disposition satisfies the internal requirements for the establishment of the subject, content, procedure, and form and the external requirements for the establishment of an external indication, an administrative disposition may exist.

[1] Articles 1 [general administrative disposition], 2, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 46, 57, and 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Articles 1 [general administrative disposition], 2, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 33, 46, 47, 55, and 55 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Readjustment Projects Act / [4] Articles 33, 46, 47, 55, 56, and 57 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Article 24 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 1 [5] Articles 1, 4, 8 (2), and 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [4] Article 6 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 6 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 6 of the Civil Procedure Act / [5] Article 6 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 6 of the General Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 67Nu44 delivered on June 27, 1967 (No. 15-2, 22), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu631 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3192), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu43 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1418), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6202 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 1923), Supreme Court Decision 98Du15863 delivered on June 25, 199 (Gong1999, 1523) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu197989 delivered on August 26, 197 (Gong1999, 1523) / [305Nu19789 delivered on August 27, 197

Plaintiff

Cheongnam-do budget chief of the budget

Daejeon High Court Decision 96Gu2833 delivered on March 28, 1997

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the designation and disposition of land substitution as of December 21, 1991 and the claim for nullification and revocation of each disposition of land substitution as of April 4, 1996 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed. The costs of appeal as to the appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Summary of the reasoning of the judgment below

A. The facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows.

The Defendant prepared a land substitution plan for the implementation of the land substitution project in this case, and made it public from September 27, 191 to October 10 of the same year, and then made an application for authorization to the Chungcheongnam-do Governor, along with the Defendant’s own opinion, to reflect some of the landowners who raised an objection during the process of public inspection and their opinions in the land substitution plan.

On December 7, 197 of the same year, the Cheongnam-do Governor authorized the amendment of the land substitution plan in accordance with the Defendant’s partial opinion, and other matters to be dealt with in accordance with the original land substitution plan. Accordingly, the Defendant partially revised the original land substitution plan and subsequently, the location of the land substitution for the instant land owned by the Plaintiff was 10m higher than at the time of the public inspection.

Around December 21, 1991, the Defendant issued a public notice of the "Land Readjustment Project and Land Substitution Plan and Land Substitution Plan" as of April 4, 1996 when the construction work was not completed, and notified the Plaintiff on May 20 of the same year. However, on September 6 of the same year, the Defendant issued a public notice of the completion of construction work following the public inspection of the documents related to the construction work, and issued a land substitution disposition only by giving the land owners a notice of the confirmation of land substitution and notification of the confirmation of land substitution.

B. The court below determined as follows on the basis of the above facts. (1) The plaintiff's land substitution plan of this case is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's land substitution plan of this case does not constitute an appeal litigation, and (2) the lawsuit seeking nullification of the land substitution plan of this case's land substitution plan is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's land substitution plan of this case's land substitution plan of this case does not constitute an appeal litigation, and (3) the lawsuit seeking nullification of the land substitution plan of this case's land substitution plan of this case's land substitution plan of this case's land substitution plan of this case's land substitution plan of this case's land substitution plan as of December 7, 191 is not necessary to go through public inspection again, and the defendant's land substitution plan of this case's land substitution plan as of December 7, 191 with the correction after the authorization of this case's land substitution plan of this case's land substitution plan was revised, and the plaintiff's land substitution plan of this case's land substitution plan of this case's land substitution plan of this case's 4.

2. On the confirmation of invalidity and revocation of a land substitution plan

The disposition of an administrative agency, which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to, in principle, an act of an administrative agency under the public law, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations with regard to a specific matter, or directly causing other legal effects. Thus, an act that does not directly change the legal status of the other party or the person concerned, such as internal decision-making, etc.

However, according to the provisions of Articles 57 and 62 of the Act, since the designation of land substitution and the disposition of replotting change directly by the rights and duties of landowners, etc., they can be deemed a disposition that is the object of appeal litigation. However, the land substitution plan merely serves as the basis for the aforementioned designation of land substitution and the disposition of land substitution and the disposition of land substitution and the disposition of land substitution and the disposition of land substitution are not directly changing the legal status of landowners, etc. or it does not entail any other unique

In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the lawsuit claiming nullification and revocation of the land substitution plan of this case on the ground that it is unlawful, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disposition subject to appeal litigation. The grounds for appeal as to this cannot be accepted.

3. As to the confirmation of invalidity and revocation of the instant disposition of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution

The purpose of Articles 47 and 33 of the Act is to provide landowners, etc. with an opportunity to submit their written opinions by making relevant documents available prior to an application for authorization of a land substitution plan. The purpose of this provision is to reflect many interested parties' opinions in the formulation of a land substitution plan and to reasonably adjust their mutual interests. Thus, in cases where interested parties' opinions are presented during the initial public inspection process to apply for authorization by modifying a land substitution plan, the procedure for public perusal of the modified contents must be followed.

However, according to the court below's determination, when some landowners, etc. present their opinions in the initial process of public inspection of a replotting plan, the defendant applied for authorization of partial revision and did not follow the procedure of public inspection of the contents to be decided in that process. Thus, in such a case, the defendant's opinion at the time of application for authorization of a replotting plan is not allowed, and according to the records, the defendant's opinion at the time of application for authorization of a replotting plan was intended to modify a replotting plan by reflecting the opinions of some owners of land in the future. The authorization as of December 7, 191 at the time of application for authorization of a replotting plan is clear that the contents to revise a replotting plan should be approved in accordance with the defendant's opinion. Thus, a replotting plan approved as of December 7, 191 are in accordance with the original contents of public inspection.

Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition of designating the reserved land pursuant to the contents revised after the authorization of December 7, 1991 is null and void as it did not comply with the replotting plan or took place without lawfully changing the replotting plan. Thus, the lower court’s conclusion that the instant disposition of designating the reserved land is lawful is ultimately an unlawful determination that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the authorization procedure of the replotting plan. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

On the other hand, the court below's rejection of this part of the lawsuit on the ground that the court below did not go through legitimate administrative appeal procedure regarding the revocation claim against the designation of the land scheduled for substitution. Thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

However, ex officio decision-contests, the claim for nullification and cancellation of the administrative disposition are incompatible claims, which can be joined only in the primary and preliminary claims, and the combination or simple combination as selective claims is not allowed. In light of the records, it is unclear that the plaintiff made a claim for nullification and cancellation of the disposition of the designation of the land scheduled for replotting in this case in any form of consolidation. Thus, it is not possible to determine whether to confirm the invalidity of the disposition of the land scheduled for replotting in this case and the claim for cancellation.

Therefore, the court below's determination of the whole of the claims for nullification and revocation of the instant disposition of the designation of the reserved land for replotting without clarifying the form of consolidation is ultimately erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the administrative disposition's nullification confirmation and consolidation of the claim for revocation. As long as the plaintiff's appeal against the part of the court below's dismissal of the claim for nullification of the instant disposition of the reserved land for replotting is reversed on the ground that the plaintiff's appeal against the part of the judgment below

However, since the disposition of designating the land as the land as the planned land substitution under the Act is effective only until the date of the public announcement of the disposition of replotting, the interest in the lawsuit shall be extinguished if the disposition of replotting is effectively announced, and even according to what the court below acknowledged, since there was a public announcement of the disposition of replotting after the disposition of designating the land as the planned land substitution, the validity of the disposition of this case is likely to cause loss of the interest in the lawsuit. Therefore, the court below should also examine this issue prior to the judgment on the merits

4. As to the confirmation of invalidity and revocation of a replotting disposition

In general, if an administrative disposition satisfies the internal requirements for the establishment of the subject, content, procedure, and form and the external requirements for the establishment of the external indication, it can be said that an administrative disposition exists.

However, Article 61(5) of the Act provides that a replotting disposition shall be notified to landowners of the matters stipulated in the replotting plan and shall be notified in writing. Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that a replotting disposition shall be notified in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment below and the records thereof. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and Article 16 of the Ordinance of this case at the time, the defendant publicly notified the replotting disposition as the implementer of the land readjustment project of this case on April 4, 1996, and publicly notified the ground for it, and the notification was sent individually to the plaintiff who is the landowner on May 20 of the same year, and the notification was made. Thus, the replotting disposition of this case publicly notified as of April 4, 1996 shall exist not only in terms of the subject, content, procedure and form, but also in terms of external indication, as a replotting disposition under Article 61 of the Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for nullification and revocation of the instant disposition by denying the establishment of the instant disposition without any specific ground, and thus, it can be deemed that it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the disposition, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit.

However, since the claim for confirmation of invalidity and the claim for cancellation as to the land substitution disposition of this case are unclear in the records, it is necessary for the court below to clarify this point prior to the judgment, and if the defendant re-announces the land substitution disposition as of September 20, 1996 through the prescribed procedure, as recognized by the court below, if the public notice is valid, it is reasonable to deem that the land substitution disposition of this case was invalid by the cancellation, etc., and therefore, the claim for confirmation of invalidity and cancellation as to the land substitution disposition of this case also lose the benefit of lawsuit. Thus, the court below should also examine this point.

5. As to the claim to nullify invalidity of the Ordinance of this case

The plaintiff filed an appeal on the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the Ordinance of this case, but there is no indication in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief in the grounds of appeal on it, and the appeal on this ground is not acceptable.

6. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the claim for nullification and revocation of each of the instant designated land substitution disposition and the claim for revocation of a replotting disposition is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed as they are without merit, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)