[1] Whether subjective conjunctive claims are joined (negative)

[2] Whether the compensation can be deposited in a case where the prohibition of disposal or provisional disposition or the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage has been made on the land subject to expropriation

[3] The case where it is not possible to dismiss a lawsuit even if the means of attack and defense by practical time do not delay the conclusion of the lawsuit

[4] In a case where an administrative disposition is null and void, whether a ruling of assessment is rendered (negative)

[1] In a subjective conjunctive claim, the determination of whether a claim against the conjunctive defendant is justifiable or not shall be made based on the result of the determination of the claim against the primary defendant. Thus, the claim against the conjunctive defendant shall be dismissed immediately, since the status of the primary defendant is considerably unstable and disadvantageously unfavorable.

[2] Where the prohibition of disposal has been registered on the land subject to expropriation, it shall not be deposited solely on the ground that the person subject to compensation is unknown. However, in the event that there is a dispute over the ownership of the land subject to expropriation, such as where the right to claim cancellation of registration of ownership has been registered on the grounds that the person subject to compensation cannot be known, a public project operator may deposit the land on the grounds that he/she is unable to identify the person subject to compensation. However, if the right to claim cancellation of registration of ownership is the right to claim registration of ownership transfer, a public project operator may not deposit the right on the grounds that it is relative uncertainty of the person subject to compensation. On the other hand, Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that "where the object of security right is expropriated or used, the security right may be exercised by the debtor on the land subject to expropriation or use of the object: Provided, That the security right shall be seized before the payment shall not be exercised, and even in this case, it shall not be prohibited from paying compensation to the landowner unless there is a seizure of the claim for compensation.

[3] The court may dismiss the method of attack or defense which was submitted late at the time of the party's intention or gross negligence when it is acknowledged that the conclusion of the lawsuit would be delayed, and it may be done not only in the form of independent decision but also by the method of determining the grounds of the judgment. However, in the case where the investigation of evidence as to the means of attack or defense is completed without a decision to dismiss the party's attack or defense, there is no concern that the conclusion of the lawsuit would be delayed. Thus, in such a situation, a new judgment cannot be said to dismiss the means of attack or defense by the party's reasoning. Furthermore, even if the method of attack or defense is necessary to continue the date, it is necessary to conduct separate review or examine the evidence, and even if the method of attack or defense remains within the scope of the continuance of the date, or the deliberation of the method of attack or defense can be completed, or the contents of attack or defense are already included in the scope of the materials of the lawsuit, it cannot be viewed as delaying the conclusion of the lawsuit. Thus, such a case shall not be dismissed

[4] Since there is no administrative act that has the effect to retain the administrative disposition that is void automatically as the subject matter of the lawsuit in the administrative litigation, there is no administrative act that has the effect to maintain it, a judgment cannot be rendered on the circumstances

[1] Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 204 and 230 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 61 (2) 2 and 4, and 65 of the Land Expropriation Act / [3] Article 138 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Article 28 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 80Da2840 decided Mar. 23, 1982 (Gong1982, 462), Supreme Court Decision 83Nu554, 555 decided Jun. 26, 1984 (Gong1984, 1307) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Da1092 decided Aug. 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2341), Supreme Court Decision 92Da28921 decided Oct. 27, 1992 (Gong192, 3287), Supreme Court Decision 93Da47615 decided May 10, 194 (Gong194, 1650) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu19799 decided Oct. 29, 197; 197Nu19819 decided Oct. 29, 197; 197Nu19689.

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Central Land Tribunal (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Kim In-con et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu6668 delivered on March 24, 1995

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu7259 delivered on January 25, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In the subjective consolidation of the conjunctive claim, the determination of the propriety of the claim against the conjunctive defendant is determined based on the result of the determination of the claim against the primary defendant. Thus, the claim against the conjunctive defendant should be dismissed immediately, since the status of the conjunctive defendant is remarkably unstable and disadvantageously unfavorable (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Nu2840, Mar. 23, 1982; 83Nu554, 555, Jun. 26, 1984, etc.).

However, according to the records, when the plaintiff filed a claim for the cancellation of the instant objection against the defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee and filed a claim for the cancellation of the adjudication against the same defendant and the joint defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation. Therefore, since the part against the above Korea Electric Power Corporation in the lawsuit in this case constitutes a consolidation of the subjective and preliminary claims against the defendant and the joint defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation, it is clear that the lawsuit in this case constitutes a consolidation of claims against the above Korea Electric Power Corporation, the court below's failure to dismiss the lawsuit in this part is erroneous. However, in this case where the judgment of the court below which accepted the plaintiff's primary claims against the defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee against the defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee, it cannot be deemed that the judgment of the court below against the joint defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation was erroneous. The precedents pointed out in the grounds of appeal are not appropriate in this case as a precedent concerning the intervention of the independent party.

2. On the second ground for appeal

If the prohibition of disposal is registered on the land subject to expropriation, it shall not be deposited on the ground that the person against whom the right to cancel the registration of ownership is unknown. However, if there is a dispute as to the reversion of ownership of the land subject to expropriation, such as where the right to claim cancellation of the registration of ownership has been registered on the basis that the person against whom the right to claim cancellation of the registration of ownership is preserved, he/she may deposit the land on the ground that the person against whom the right to claim cancellation is not known. However, if the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer is the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer, he/she shall not make a deposit on the ground that the right to claim the relative uncertainty of the person against whom the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer has been made. Meanwhile, Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that "if the object of security right is expropriated or used, the security right shall be exercised on the compensation to the debtor due to the expropriation or use of the object: Provided, That the security right shall not be exercised on the compensation unless it is seized before the payment, it cannot be deposited on the ground that the owner is not known.

Therefore, the court below erred in holding that the court below may not deposit the land subject to provisional disposition on the ground that the Korea Electric Power Corporation cannot identify the person subject to provisional disposition on the ground that the registration of provisional disposition on the land subject to provisional disposition on the land subject to provisional disposition on the ground that the person subject to provisional disposition on the land subject to provisional disposition is not known, without any deliberation and determination as to whether the person subject to provisional disposition is the right to claim for cancellation of ownership or the right to claim for ownership transfer registration. However, according to the records, it is possible to find the fact of deposit on the ground that the Korea Electric Power Corporation, which is a business operator, has registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the land subject to provisional disposition on the ground that the person subject to provisional disposition on the ground that the person subject to provisional disposition on the ground that the person subject to provisional disposition on the ground that the Korea Electric Power Corporation, who is the business operator, was expressed as the person subject to the deposit, cannot be known

3. On the third ground for appeal

The court may dismiss the method of attack or defense which has been submitted late at the time of the party's intention or gross negligence when it is deemed that the conclusion of the lawsuit may be delayed, and it may be done by the method of determining the grounds of the judgment as well as in the form of an independent decision. However, the court cannot dismiss the case in such circumstances where the investigation of the evidence on the means of attack or defense has been completed without a decision to dismiss the party's attack or defense. In addition, even if the method of attack or defense has to be examined separately or examined as evidence, it cannot be said that the conclusion of the lawsuit may not be delayed if the procedure is completed within the scope of the material of the lawsuit which has already been completed the trial, and it cannot be viewed that the conclusion of the lawsuit cannot be delayed even in such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da19479, Apr. 16, 1998; 200Da3279, Apr. 19, 197). 197

However, according to the records, after the remanding of the case, the plaintiffs' attorney asserted that the deposit of this case in the preparatory document dated November 23, 1994 stated in the 194 date for pleading of the court below is null and void, and submitted a documentary evidence (Evidence A (Evidence A5). The court below, upon examining the evidence as to the above documentary evidence, can find the fact that the pleading is closed and closed only after the examination of other allegations was made on the 22th date for pleading while the examination of evidence as to the above allegations was completed. Under these circumstances, the above assertion by the plaintiffs was delayed, and it cannot be dismissed. The grounds for appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted.

4. On the fourth ground for appeal

Since there is no administrative act that has the effect to maintain the administrative disposition that is void as a subject matter of lawsuit in the administrative litigation, it shall not be deemed that a judgment under Article 28 of the Administrative Litigation Act shall not be rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu380, Feb. 26, 1985; 90Nu926, Oct. 11, 1991; 91Nu827, Nov. 10, 192). Therefore, as the court below has decided lawfully, the disposition of this case shall be null and void, and the decision of the court below which did not render a judgment on the circumstance is just, and there is no violation of law as pointed out in the grounds for appeal. The grounds for appeal shall not be accepted.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)