(a) Where a person raises an objection to the Central Land Expropriation Committee because he/she is dissatisfied with the adjudication of expropriation, and files an administrative lawsuit to seek the revocation of such objection against the adjudication of expropriation, Article 18 of the Administrative Appeals Act and Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act (negative);

B. Whether it is unconstitutional or unlawful to prescribe the filing period of the objection and the filing period of the administrative litigation under the above "A" as shorter than the period under the Administrative Appeals Act and the Administrative Litigation Act (negative)

(a) Where the competent land expropriation committee has an objection against the original adjudication, it shall file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee within one month from the date of service of such written adjudication, and where the said committee has an objection against the adjudication on an objection raised by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, it shall file an administrative litigation to seek a cancellation of such adjudication within one month from the date of service of such written adjudication, and in this case, the provisions of Article 18 of the Administrative Appeals Act and Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act shall not

B. It is understood that the period of filing an objection against a ruling of expropriation and the period of filing an administrative litigation against such ruling is shorter than the period of filing an administrative appeal (60 days) under Article 18(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act (60 days) and the period of filing an administrative litigation under Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act (60 days) and the period of filing an administrative lawsuit (60 days) under Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act are necessary to secure the characteristics and expertise of a public project related to land expropriation. Thus, it cannot be said that it violates Articles 43 and 42 of the Administrative Appeals Act or is contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution.

(a)Article 75-2(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 18(1)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Act, Article 43, Article 42 of the same Act, Article 27 of the Constitution;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5198 decided Mar. 28, 1989 (Gong1989,694) 90Nu1755 decided Jun. 22, 1990 (Gong1990,1585) 92Nu565 decided Jun. 9, 1992 (Gong192,2159)

○○○ clan Head of the Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Central Land Tribunal and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu614 delivered on July 25, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the provisions of Articles 73, 74 and 75-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, if there is an objection against the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee or the local Land Expropriation Committee, the objection shall be filed within one month from the date of receiving the original copy of the adjudication, and if there is an objection against the said adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, the administrative litigation shall be filed within one month from the date of serving the said written adjudication on it.

As such, setting the period for filing an objection against a ruling of expropriation and the period for filing an administrative litigation against such ruling which is shorter than the period for filing an administrative appeal (60 days) under Article 18(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act (60 days) and the period for filing an administrative litigation under Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act (60 days) is understood to have been necessary to secure the characteristics and expertise of a public project related to land expropriation, and thus, it cannot be said that it violates Article 43 of the Administrative Appeals Act or violates Article 27 of the Constitution.

Any party member who is dissatisfied with the original adjudication of the competent Land Expropriation Committee shall file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee within one month from the date of service of the written adjudication, and if he/she is dissatisfied with the adjudication of the Central Land Expropriation Committee, he/she shall file an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of such adjudication within one month from the date of service of the written adjudication, and in such case, the provisions of Article 18 of the Administrative Appeals Act and Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act shall not be applied (Article 88Nu5198, Mar. 28, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1755, Jun. 22, 1990, etc.).

In addition, the provisions of Article 42 of the Administrative Appeals Act stipulate the duty of disclosure of administrative appeal guidance, not the duty of guidance of administrative litigation.

In the case of an administrative suit that is not a request for administrative appeal, if there is no notification of the deadline for filing the suit, there is no legal basis to regard the period as 60 days of Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

With respect to the service of the original copy of the instant written ruling, the written claim for the lawsuit that the period of filing the suit should be considered to be 60 days under the Administrative Litigation Act, not less than one month under the Land Expropriation Act, because there was no notification of the administrative litigation institution.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful as against the intent of the filing period, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)