(a) Where the previous land is indicated in the public announcement of a replotting disposition by stating that the reserved land for replotting is designated as a substitute land and a phrase "total withholding" is added in the remarks column thereof, whether such disposition is deemed to have been taken (negative);

(b) Whether a replotting disposition exists where individual notice is omitted to owners of previous land for which a replotting disposition is publicly announced (affirmative)

C. Whether the existence of an administrative disposition, which is the subject of litigation in an administrative litigation, can be the subject of confession (negative)

A. If the owner of the previous land, who had been designated as a substitute in a replotting plan, failed to obtain the designation of substitute in the replotting plan at the stage of the determination of replotting, it is possible to seek cancellation in the sense of claiming the illegality or invalidity of the above non-Replotting or sub-designation of substitute lot and declaring the invalidity of the designation as a substitute lot. However, in the public notice of replotting, the land in this case, which is the previous land, shall be designated as a substitute lot in accordance with the replotting plan. However, if the phrase "total postponement" is added and stated in the public notice of replotting plan, it is unclear about the meaning of the above phrase itself, and it cannot be readily concluded that the land owner was a substitute lot in the above phrase, and even if the land owner is deemed as a subsidiary of the so-called administrative act added to limit or exclude the effect of the designation of substitute lot, which is the main contents of the land substitution plan, the land owner, who is the disposition authority, can designate the substitute lot as a substitute lot as stipulated in the replotting plan, and it cannot be deemed unlawful or invalid since it did not have any legal relations with the initial designation or binding force.

B. A replotting disposition is established externally through the public notice, which is an act of indicating, without relation to whether it is an individual notice, and is effective under the substantive law from the following day after the public notice. However, as for the public notice, the starting point of appeal period for administrative litigation, etc. is determined based on the individual notice of a replotting disposition, since it is difficult to deem that a replotting disposition was notified to a land owner, who is a specific party, the starting point of appeal period for administrative litigation, etc. is determined based on the individual notice of a replotting disposition

(c) The existence of an administrative disposition, which is the subject of litigation in an administrative litigation, is an ex officio matter and cannot be the subject of confession.

(a) Article 46 (a) of the Land Readjustment Project Act; Article 61 and Article 62 (c) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 78Nu170 delivered on August 22, 1978 (Gong1978, 11050), 87Nu1106 delivered on April 27, 198 (Gong1988, 924). Supreme Court Decision 82Nu484 delivered on December 27, 1983 (Gong1984, 331) 84Nu653 delivered on July 8, 1986 (Gong1986, 1004)

Cho Jae-in, Attorneys Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu508 delivered on May 30, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

1. According to the judgment of the court below and the records, the defendant judged that the above replotting disposition was not possible on January 18, 1968, because it was merely 150 square meters of the land owned by the plaintiff in Seocho-gu, Seoul, which was approved for the implementation of the replotting disposition, and the above replotting plan was determined to allow only 2,640 square meters of the land owned by the plaintiff to remain in the implementation zone with the authorization of the implementation of the replotting plan, and that the above replotting plan was not established for the land of this case as stated in the public notice of the land of this case, with the exception of the above replotting disposition, since the land of this case was included in the above replotting disposition as of January 18, 1968, and the land of this case which was excluded from the above replotting disposition as of August 2, 1985, the court below found that the land of this case was not subject to the previous replotting disposition's land substitution disposition for the purpose of which the land of this case was excluded from the replotting disposition as of 326.7 square meters of the land of this case.

2. According to Article 46 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, an implementer shall determine a land substitution plan stating the matters such as the replotting plan, the replotting plan by lot, the detailed statement by lot and right, the detailed statement of the liquidation register by lot and right, the detailed statement of the land in recompense land or the reserved land. According to Article 61 of the same Act, an implementer shall publicly announce the completion of construction concerning the whole land substitution and rearrangement project of a land substitution plan, and shall, when he intends to take the above land substitution plan, make a land substitution disposition without delay after going through the prescribed public inspection procedure, notify the land owner of the matters prescribed in the land substitution plan and make a public announcement thereof. According to Article 62 (1) of the same Act, where a land substitution disposition is publicly announced, the land substitution stipulated in the land substitution plan shall be deemed to be the previous land from the day following the date of the public announcement of the land substitution disposition, and since the rights existing in the previous land substitution plan which exists within the land substitution plan shall become null and void when the land substitution plan becomes null and void after the previous land substitution plan becomes void.

However, with regard to the public notice of the land substitution disposition of this case, the previous land shall be designated as a substitute lot of 42 1,174.8 square meters and above, which is the land of this case, as stipulated in the land substitution plan. However, it is merely an expression "total postponement" in the remarks column, and it cannot be concluded that the above phrase itself was not clear and that the defendant refused to designate the above substitute lot by only the above phrase, and even if it is deemed as an assistant to the so-called administrative act added to limit or exclude the effect of the above land substitution designation, which is the main expression, the land substitution disposition of this case, the land substitution disposition of this case can be designated as a substitute lot as stipulated in the land substitution plan, and it is not possible to designate the substitute lot as well as to maintain an uncertain or uncertain state of legal relations due to the land substitution without any binding force or it is reasonable to view that the above land substitution disposition of this case was not a land substitution disposition of this case from the original land substitution disposition of this case to the public notice of this case 281 to the land substitution disposition of this case.

3. Meanwhile, in order to take a replotting disposition, the implementer shall notify the land owner of the matters set forth in the replotting plan and shall publicly announce it, but in this case, the defendant did not give any notice to the plaintiff. However, in the public notice of replotting disposition, the notice of replotting disposition only stated "the service of documents should be separately notified to the land owner, but the land owner and interested parties who are not received shall substitute this public notice." Thus, it cannot be deemed that the notice to the plaintiff was naturally made. Thus, in the instant replotting disposition, the notice to the plaintiff who is the previous land owner cannot be deemed omitted.

However, according to Articles 61 and 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, the public announcement system of a replotting disposition takes effect as soon as the effect of a replotting disposition on the whole of a land substitution planning zone completed by construction work and takes place in full account of the fact that there are many cases where the arrival of the land is sought or the arrival of the land for public facilities is not reached, the individual notification to the land owners is provided to widely inform the general public of a uniform change in the legal relationship. Therefore, it is reasonable to determine the validity of a replotting disposition by omitting notification to some land owners, and it is difficult to determine the validity of a replotting disposition as an individual legal requirement of a series of procedures that develop individual notification to the land owners for the effective purpose of a replotting disposition. According to the purport and purpose of the above procedure under the same Act, it is difficult to determine the validity of a replotting disposition for the purpose of mediating the interests of conflicting interested parties or to secure the rights and interests of interested parties, and thus, it is difficult to determine the validity of a replotting disposition as an individual act of a replotting disposition, regardless of whether it is an objection.

In this case, as seen earlier, there was a public notice of a replotting disposition on the land of this case. Thus, even if individual notice was omitted against the plaintiff, it cannot be said that there was no replotting disposition against the plaintiff. Thus, there is no argument that there was no replotting disposition against the plaintiff.

4. In addition, the existence of administrative disposition, which is the object of litigation in administrative litigation, can not be the object of confession as an ex officio investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu653, Jul. 8, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu484, Dec. 27, 1983; etc.). Thus, as in the theory of lawsuit, the defendant, like the court below, stated that the disposition of replotting against the land of this case was suspended and the disposition of replotting was taken against the remaining land, and then revoked it, even if the plaintiff's claim was presented at the court below, it can be known that the defendant, the owner of the previous land of the land of this case, who is the land of this case, requested revocation of the disposition without designating the substitute land of this case. Thus, it is unlawful that the defendant, who is the owner of the land of this case, was the time of the land of this case and thus, it cannot be recognized as binding force of confession. Thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confession and revocation of confession, incomplete hearing, and incomplete judgment.

5. In addition, even if there is a land substitution designation disposition against the Plaintiff, which is cited by the theory of lawsuit, it is obvious that the depreciation rate applied to the Plaintiff was unfair. Thus, it is not a legitimate ground for appeal against the original judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu325, Feb. 24, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu295, Oct. 11, 1983).

6. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)