The nature of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the imposition of withdrawal charges pursuant to Articles 13 and 126 of the Land Improvement Project Act;

The disposition of the withdrawal charges imposed by the farmland improvement association is based on Articles 13, 16, and 126 of the Land Improvement Project Act, which belongs to the legal relationship under public law. Therefore, the lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the disposition is an administrative litigation under Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Articles 13, 36, and 126 of the Earth Improvement Project Act

Honam Fertilizer Corporation

B.Korea Land Improvement Association

Gwangju High Court Decision 65Na149 delivered on August 11, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

(1) As to ground of appeal No. 1

According to the facts established by the court below, since the plaintiff is a purchaser of land within the land improvement project zone of the defendant cooperative, it shall be deemed that he succeeded to the rights and duties of the former owner of the land improvement project under Article 13, Article 126 of the Land Improvement project Act, and the defendant cooperative has the authority to impose the expenses of the cooperative upon the union members or the withdrawing union members under Article 36 of the same Act. Therefore, even if the defendant cooperative imposed the withdrawal charges on the plaintiff on the plaintiff, it shall not be deemed that it is more than a certain form of imposition, and even if it is assumed that there is a violation of laws and regulations as alleged by the plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the violation of such laws and regulations is apparent, and therefore the above disposition continues to be a valid disposition of imposition without a legitimate revocation by the competent authority. Accordingly, even if the disposition of arrears was taken in accordance with the disposition of disposition of arrears, it cannot be deemed that the defendant acquired the land portion purchased by the plaintiff company without any legal ground, and even if examining detailed records, it shall not be viewed separately from the defendant cooperative area.

(2) As to the second ground for appeal

The imposition of withdrawal charges against the plaintiff company of the defendant association is based on Articles 13, 36, and 126 of the Land Improvement Project Act, which belongs to the legal relationship under public law. Therefore, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition is an administrative litigation under Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Therefore, it is not possible to employ an argument to the contrary.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-sub (Presiding Judge)