A. Where the Land Tribunal’s disposition of acceptance adjudication is null and void, whether it can bring an action to confirm the invalidity of the adjudication of acceptance itself (affirmative)

B. Whether each provision of Articles 73 through 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, which provides for the filing of an objection, applies to a case where a person seeks confirmation of invalidity of the adjudication on acceptance itself (negative)

A. In a case where an expropriation ruling by the Land Tribunal on land expropriation is null and void because it does not differ from a general administrative disposition in that it aims at generating a certain legal effect, the land expropriation ruling itself can seek confirmation of invalidity of the adjudication.

(b)With respect to each provision of Articles 73 to 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, a person dissatisfied with the ruling of expropriation by the central or local Land Expropriation Committee shall file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and interpreting that an administrative litigation shall be filed against the said ruling if the said ruling is dissatisfied with the said ruling, not the said ruling, on the ground that the ruling of expropriation is unlawful, and it shall not be interpreted as such even in a case where the said ruling of expropriation itself makes a claim for nullification on the ground that the ruling of expropriation is null and void.

Articles 73, 74, 75, and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu254 delivered on June 14, 1983 (Gong1983,1090) 91Nu8050 delivered on January 19, 1993 (Gong193,743)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Central Land Tribunal and eight Defendants (Attorney Lee Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu1201 delivered on September 17, 1992

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

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as the plaintiffs' primary claim in this case, Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that if public project operators did not pay or deposit the compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal by the time of expropriation, the adjudication by the relevant Land Tribunal becomes null and void. However, as the defendant association, which is public project operators, deposited the compensation for expropriation which should reach September 18, 1990 when the time of expropriation stipulated in the procedure of expropriation, loses its validity, the ruling of expropriation in this case becomes null and void, the court below made a judgment on the legitimacy of the lawsuit prior to the judgment on the legitimacy of the above assertion.

In other words, according to the provisions of Articles 73 through 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, a person who has an objection against the adjudication of expropriation by the central or local land expropriation committee shall file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee within one month from the date of receipt of the original copy of the written adjudication, and if he/she is dissatisfied with the adjudication of the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the objection, he/she shall file an administrative litigation within one month from the date of delivery of the original copy of the written adjudication. In full view of the purport of each of the above provisions, the adjudication of expropriation itself is not subject to administrative litigation, and the adjudication of expropriation itself is not subject to administrative litigation, and thus, the administrative litigation on the main claim of this case against the Defendant Committee by the local Land Expropriation Committee on July 14, 190

2. However, where an administrative disposition is null and void, its effect does not naturally take place from the beginning, and thus, unlike the case of seeking a cancellation of the administrative disposition, it can seek a confirmation of invalidity without being distorted in the procedure of going through an administrative appeal or the period of filing the lawsuit, and since the adjudication of expropriation by the central or local land expropriation committee on the land expropriation is not completely different from the general administrative disposition in that it aims at a specific legal effect in its nature, it shall be deemed that the adjudication itself can seek a confirmation of invalidity.

In addition, in relation to each provision of Articles 73 through 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, a person who is dissatisfied with the ruling of expropriation by the central or local Land Expropriation Committee shall file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and in the event of an objection to the ruling by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, an administrative litigation shall not be filed against the ruling of expropriation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu1755, Jun. 22, 1990; 90Nu288, Feb. 12, 1991; 90Nu28, Feb. 12, 1991). It is limited to a case where the revocation of the ruling of expropriation of land is filed on the ground that the ruling of expropriation of land is unlawful, and as in this case, it shall not be interpreted as a case where the adjudication of expropriation itself seeks confirmation of invalidity as it becomes null and void as a matter of course.

3. Ultimately, the court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' lawsuit as to the main claim of this case on the ground that the decision of acceptance itself is not subject to administrative litigation, and that the lawsuit seeking nullification itself is unlawful, shall not be deemed to have committed an unlawful act by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the subject of administrative litigation or the litigation seeking nullification in the land expropriation, and the remaining grounds for appeal are with merit. Thus, the decision of acceptance is reversed without any further determination as to the remaining grounds for appeal and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)