A. Whether the litigation against the deceased party is appropriate (=unapplicable law)

B. Whether the adjudication of expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal can be subject to administrative litigation (negative)

A. Since it is evident that the plaintiffs died before the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs are unlawful in the lawsuit to which they are the parties.

(b)In the administrative litigation on the land expropriation comprehensively taking account of the provisions of Articles 73 through 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, the adjudication of expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, which is not the adjudication on the application for objection by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, may not be subject to administrative litigation.

(a) Article 47 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 75-2 and 29 of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 69Da929 delivered on March 24, 1970, 77Nu164 delivered on March 14, 1978

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 11 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Central Land Tribunal (Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu847 delivered on November 26, 1981

The appeal by plaintiffs 1 and 2 is dismissed, and the judgment of the court below against the remaining plaintiffs is reversed, and the lawsuit by the plaintiffs is dismissed.

The costs of appeal by Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are assessed against the rest of the plaintiffs, through all instances.

1. As to the appeal by Plaintiffs 1 and 2:

According to the judgment of the court below and the records, since it is clear that the above plaintiffs died in July 14, 1946 and July 11 of the same year prior to the institution of this case, and thus, it cannot be exempted from rejection of the lawsuit in which the plaintiffs who are parties to this case cannot be dismissed as it is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da929 delivered on March 24, 1970). Thus, the judgment of the court below which made the same purport is justified, and it is without merit.

2. Ex officio determination (as to the plaintiffs' appeal except the above plaintiffs)

In full view of the provisions of Articles 73 through 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, an administrative litigation against land expropriation may be filed when there is an objection against the adjudication on an objection filed by the Central Land Expropriation Committee. Thus, the adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on August 19, 1980 cannot be subject to administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 77Nu164 delivered on March 14, 1978). However, although the court below rendered a judgment on the merits of this case, which sought cancellation of the defendant's request for adjudication on expropriation by the defendant on August 19, 1980, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this lawsuit is unlawful as seen in the above explanation, and it is not a nature to correct it, and it shall not be dismissed.

Therefore, the appeal by plaintiffs 1 and 2 is dismissed, and the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs other than this plaintiffs is reversed, and the lawsuit costs are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating parties.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)