Whether Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act applies to a lawsuit seeking cancellation of land expropriation under the Land Expropriation Act (negative), and the subject of the lawsuit seeking cancellation thereof (=adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee’s objection)

In determining the principle of pre-determination as in the Land Expropriation Act, a suit for revocation of the original disposition cannot be filed without a suit for revocation of the original disposition, and a suit for revocation of the original disposition cannot be filed without a ruling, and Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act shall not apply to the case where the disposition of expropriation is null and void. Accordingly, if the disposition of expropriation is null and void, a suit for revocation of the adjudication itself may be filed at the time of an objection by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, but a suit for revocation of the adjudication of expropriation may be filed at the time of an objection by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and the adjudication of expropriation shall not be subject to a suit for revocation, and in an administrative litigation on the objection, a defect in the ruling of expropriation which is not considered as a ground

Articles 73, 74, 75, and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act; Articles 18 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1755 delivered on June 22, 1990 (Gong1990, 1585) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu288 delivered on February 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 989) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15789 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1591), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu561 delivered on December 8, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 403)

MoMofS Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Han-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

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

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu13718 delivered on January 19, 200

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the main claim

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the ground for invalidation of the disposition of expropriation cannot be a ground for invalidation of the disposition of expropriation, and there is no assertion or proof to acknowledge it differently. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is justified and there is no violation of the law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the invalidation of the administrative disposition. The ground for appeal on

2. As to the conjunctive claim

Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act does not apply to cases where a revocation suit against a original disposition, without recognizing a suit against a revocation suit against a ruling of acceptance, which is the original disposition, in setting the principle of pre-determination as in the Land Expropriation Act, and only a suit against a ruling of acceptance is recognized. Therefore, where a ruling of acceptance is null and void, a suit against revocation of the ruling itself may be filed when the Central Land Expropriation Committee is dissatisfied with the ruling of acceptance (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15789, Apr. 27, 1993); however, a suit against revocation of land expropriation may be filed at the time of objection by the Central Land Expropriation Committee (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1755, Jun. 22, 190). In an administrative litigation against a ruling of acceptance, not only the inherent illegal grounds of the ruling itself, but also the defect of the ruling that is not a ground for objection can be asserted (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu17556, Feb. 22, 1991; 20Nu1585, May 15, 1985).

The court below maintained the first instance court's rejection of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim of this case for its revocation on April 20, 200 by the Central Land Expropriation Committee against the land of this case owned by the plaintiff. In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is proper in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles. The ground of appeal as to this point is not accepted.

3. 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 Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)