Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Binding force of an annulment judgment and exclusion-zone compensation
Supreme Court, Mar. 23, 2001, 99Du5238 (judgment)
Case name: 손실보상재결처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Once a final judgment has annulled an administrative refusal decision, may the agency refuse the same application again on grounds existing before the close of oral argument in the first case, and what basis fixes the compensation for land included as an exclusion zone in a de facto river under Article 74(1) of the former River Act?
Holding
It may not. Under Article 30(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act the binding force of a final annulment judgment reaches not only the order but also the findings on the specific grounds of illegality that the order presupposed, and under Article 30(2) the agency that made a refusal must, in principle, grant the application again; refusing again on grounds existing before the close of oral argument conflicts with that binding force. Compensation for land included as an exclusion zone in a de facto river under Article 74(1) of the former River Act is, in principle, compensation for the restriction on the owner's use and profit, and is properly measured by the rent-equivalent amount on the conditions at the time of inclusion; the exemption from occupancy fees under Article 33 does not exclude that compensation itself.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
취소소송에서 소송의 대상이 된 거부처분을 실체법상의 위법사유에 기하여 취소하는 판결이 확정된 경우에는 당해 거부처분을 한 행정청은 원칙적으로 신청을 인용하는 처분을 하여야 하고, 사실심 변론종결 이전의 사유를 내세워 다시 거부처분을 하는 것은 확정판결의 기속력에 저촉되어 허용되지 아니한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a judgment revoking a refusal disposition, which was the object of the lawsuit, on grounds of illegality under substantive law has become final and conclusive in an action for revocation, the administrative agency that made the refusal disposition in question must, as a rule, issue a disposition granting the application, and to again make a refusal disposition by asserting grounds existing prior to the close of oral argument in the courts of fact conflicts with the binding force of a final and conclusive judgment and is not permitted.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고의 부담으로 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
준용하천의 제외지로 편입됨에 따른 같은 법 제74조 제1항의 손실보상은 원칙적으로 공용제한에 의하여 토지 소유자로서 사용수익이 제한되는 데 따른 손실보상으로서 제외지 편입 당시의 현황에 따른 지료 상당액을 기준으로 함이 상당하고
Unofficial English translation
Compensation for loss under Article 74 (1) of the same Act arising from incorporation as excluded land of a river to which the provisions apply mutatis mutandis is, in principle, compensation for loss arising from the restriction on use and profit as the owner of the land due to public restriction, and it is reasonable to take as the standard an amount equivalent to land rent based on the status at the time of incorporation as excluded land,
Factors
- 판결의 주문뿐만 아니라 그 전제가 되는 처분 등의 구체적 위법사유에 관한 이유 중의 판단에 대하여도 인정되고
- 사실심 변론종결 이전의 사유를 내세워 다시 거부처분을 하는 것은 확정판결의 기속력에 저촉되어 허용되지 아니한다
- 공용제한에 의하여 토지 소유자로서 사용수익이 제한되는 데 따른 손실보상으로서
- 제외지 편입 당시의 현황에 따른 지료 상당액을 기준으로 함이 상당하고
- 점용료의 징수 면제를 들어 준용하천의 제외지로 편입됨에 따른 손실보상 자체가 배제된다고 볼 수도 없다
Unofficial English translation
• with respect not only to the order of the judgment but also to the findings in the reasoning concerning the specific grounds of illegality of the disposition, etc. which serves as its premise, and
• to again make a refusal disposition by asserting grounds existing prior to the close of oral argument in the courts of fact conflicts with the binding force of a final and conclusive judgment and is not permitted
• as compensation for loss arising from the restriction on use and profit as the owner of the land due to public restriction,
• it is reasonable to take as the standard an amount equivalent to land rent based on the status at the time of incorporation as excluded land, and
• nor can it be regarded that compensation for loss arising from incorporation as excluded land of a river to which the provisions apply mutatis mutandis is itself excluded on the ground of exemption from the collection of occupancy fees
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1989. 2. 28. 선고 88누6177 판결(공1989, 551)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6177 decided February 28, 1989 (Gong 1989, 551)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1982. 3. 23. 선고 81도1450 판결, 대법원 1982. 5. 11. 선고 80누104 판결, 대법원 1982. 5. 11. 선고 80누104 판결(공1982, 571), 대법원 1989. 2. 28. 선고 88누6177 판결(공1989, 551), 대법원 1990. 12. 11. 선고 90누3560 판결(공1991, 495), 대법원 1992. 7. 14. 선고 92누2912 판결(공1992, 2428)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How is the rent-equivalent amount assessed for the period after the amendment of Article 9(3) of the Decree on 11 October 1994 exempted occupancy fees within a de facto river zone, given that the compensation itself is not thereby excluded?
A later Supreme Court decision fixing how the rent-equivalent amount is computed for periods after the 1994 exemption, or an amendment to Article 74(1) of the River Act or to Article 4(2) and the supplementary provision of its Enforcement Decree, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How is the rent-equivalent amount assessed for the period after the amendment of Article 9(3) of the Decree on 11 October 1994 exempted occupancy fees within a de facto river zone, given that the compensation itself is not thereby excluded?” vs Independent “Under what conditions could a ground arising after the close of factual proceedings justify a new refusal?”
The primary asks how to assess compensation after the fee exemption, while the independent asks when later grounds can justify a new refusal.
취소소송에서 소송의 대상이 된 거부처분을 실체법상의 위법사유에 기하여 취소하는 판결이 확정된 경우에는 당해 거부처분을 한 행정청은 원칙적으로 신청을 인용하는 처분을 하여야 하고, 사실심 변론종결 이전의 사유를 내세워 다시 거부처분을 하는 것은 확정판결의 기속력에 저촉되어 허용되지 아니한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 19 March 1999 (99Nu181), held that after the final Seoul High Court decision of 24 December 1997 (96Nu24684) had annulled the defendant's disposition of 18 June 1996 rejecting the whole of the plaintiff's loss compensation application, the defendant's new disposition again refusing compensation for the levee land and the adjoining old channel part conflicted with the binding force of that final judgment. It also held unlawful, as to the parts falling within the exclusion zone, the new disposition's use of the occupancy fee under Article 33 as the basis of calculation and its allowance of compensation only for the period up to September 1994.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the appellate judgment had not misapplied the law on the binding force, and that the rent-equivalent measure of compensation was proper, with no ground to treat the compensation as one for the denial of an occupancy permit or to base it on the occupancy fee under Article 33, and none to hold that the exemption from occupancy fees removed the compensation itself. It also held that Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20175 of 10 March 1998, cited as a ground of appeal, had been abolished by the en banc Supreme Court Decision 98Du15597 of 15 March 2001 and could not be relied on, and dismissed the appeal with costs on the defendant.
Distinguishing conditions
- A second refusal resting on grounds that arose after the close of oral argument in the case that produced the final annulment judgment.
- Land that was not included as an exclusion zone in the river zone of a de facto river, so that Article 74(1) of the former River Act does not reach it.
- An application whose refusal has not been annulled by a final judgment on substantive grounds, since the binding force here rests on such a judgment.
Record verification notes
Establish first whether a final judgment annulled the refusal decision, and on what specific grounds of illegality, since the agency may raise only grounds arising after the close of oral argument. For the amount, set the conditions at the time the land entered the exclusion zone against the rent-equivalent measure, and check whether the 1994 amendment exempting occupancy fees within the de facto river zone bears on the period claimed.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 취소소송에서 처분 등을 취소하는 확정판결의 기속력의 범위 및 거부처분에 대한 취소판결이 확정된 경우 행정청이 사실심 변론종결 이전의 사유를 내세워 다시 거부처분을 할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 구 하천법 제10조와 같은법시행령 제3항의 규정에 의한 준용하천의 경우, 제외지로 편입된 토지에 대한 손실보상의 기준(=제외지 편입 당시의 현황에 따른 지료 상당액)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The scope of the binding force of a final and conclusive judgment revoking a disposition, etc. in an action for revocation, and whether, where a judgment of revocation of a refusal disposition has become final and conclusive, the administrative agency may again make a refusal disposition by asserting grounds existing prior to the close of oral argument in the courts of fact (negative) [2] In the case of a river to which the provisions of Article 10 of the former River Act and Paragraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act apply mutatis mutandis, the standard for compensation for loss with respect to land incorporated as excluded land (=an amount equivalent to land rent based on the status at the time of incorporation as excluded land)
Summary of the holding
[1] 행정소송법 제30조 제1항에 의하여 인정되는 취소소송에서 처분 등을 취소하는 확정판결의 기속력은 주로 판결의 실효성 확보를 위하여 인정되는 효력으로서 판결의 주문뿐만 아니라 그 전제가 되는 처분 등의 구체적 위법사유에 관한 이유 중의 판단에 대하여도 인정되고, 같은 조 제2항의 규정상 특히 거부처분에 대한 취소판결이 확정된 경우에는 그 처분을 행한 행정청은 판결의 취지에 따라 다시 처분을 하여야 할 의무를 부담하게 되므로, 취소소송에서 소송의 대상이 된 거부처분을 실체법상의 위법사유에 기하여 취소하는 판결이 확정된 경우에는 당해 거부처분을 한 행정청은 원칙적으로 신청을 인용하는 처분을 하여야 하고, 사실심 변론종결 이전의 사유를 내세워 다시 거부처분을 하는 것은 확정판결의 기속력에 저촉되어 허용되지 아니한다. [2] 구 하천법(1999. 2. 8. 법률 제5893호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제10조와 같은법시행령(1999. 8. 9. 대통령령 제16535호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제9조 제3항의 규정에 의한 준용하천의 경우에 제외지와 같은 하천구역에 편입된 토지의 소유자가 그로 인하여 받게 되는 그 사용수익권에 관한 제한내용과 헌법상 정당보상의 원칙 등에 비추어 볼 때, 준용하천의 제외지로 편입됨에 따른 같은 법 제74조 제1항의 손실보상은 원칙적으로 공용제한에 의하여 토지 소유자로서 사용수익이 제한되는 데 따른 손실보상으로서 제외지 편입 당시의 현황에 따른 지료 상당액을 기준으로 함이 상당하고, 달리 이를 같은 법 제25조에서 정한 점용허가 등이 허용되지 아니하는 데 따른 손실보상이라거나, 혹은 같은 법 제33조의 점용료가 그 기준이 되어야 한다고 보아야 할 근거가 없는 한편, 같은법시행령 제9조 제3항이 1994. 10. 11. 대통령령 제14400호로 개정되면서 토지 소유자에게는 준용하천구역 내에서의 토지점용허가 등의 경우에 점용료 징수에 관한 같은 법 제33조의 규정을 배제하는 규정을 두었으나, 이러한 규정에 기한 점용료의 징수 면제를 들어 준용하천의 제외지로 편입됨에 따른 손실보상 자체가 배제된다고 볼 수도 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고의 부담으로 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 행정소송법 제1조[행정처분일반], 제30조 제1항, 제2항 / [2] 구 하천법(1999. 2. 8. 법률 제5893호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제1항 제2호 (다)목, 제10조(현행 제2조 제2항 제3호 참조), 제25조(현행 제33조 참조), 제33조(현행 제38조 참조), 제74조 제1항(현행 제74조 제1항, 제2항 참조), 구 하천법시행령(1999. 8. 9. 대통령령 제16535호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제9조 제3항(현행 제4조 제2항, 부칙 제2항 참조)
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger