A. The part of the claim to confirm the invalidity of each of the demanding dispositions of arrears corresponding to the No. 1 to No. 7-7 of the notice of this case in the annexed Form No. 1 to No. 8 of October 8, 2019, as the Defendant against the deceased C;

B. The part demanding payment of money

Each rejection shall be dismissed.

2. On October 8, 2019, the Defendant’s attached Form Nos. 8-1, 2019 against the deceased C confirms that the disposition of demanding the payment of compensation corresponding to the No. 8-1, 2-7, 3, 3, 3-2, 3-8, 4, 3-2, 4, 201, is invalid.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On November 8, 1976, the net C purchased the ownership of the land of 145 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City DD (hereinafter “instant land”)-based mentorry and sap E 12 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B. On the ground that the deceased C occupied the instant land, which is State property, without permission, the Defendant issued the net C a notice of imposition or demand of indemnity and late payment charges on several occasions as shown in the following table (hereinafter referred to as the “instant notice”; and the detailed details of the instant notice that reflects the entire imposition or demand of indemnity and late payment charges as indicated in the following table (hereinafter referred to as the “attached Table”).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C. The deceased C died on August 29, 2014, and the remaining inheritors except for the Plaintiff, who are children, renounced inheritance on November 25, 2014. The Plaintiff, upon filing a qualified acceptance report on the same day, accepted the said report on February 27, 2015, and completed the registration of transfer on October 23, 2019 for the instant building on August 29, 2014.

D. Meanwhile, the instant land was incorporated into ○○○ System* Housing Redevelopment Improvement Zone, and ○○ System* District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “instant association”) implementing a housing redevelopment project in the said rearrangement zone paid a total of KRW 101,201,640 on October 23, 2019 to purchase the instant land.

E. On November 1, 2019, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant building, agreed that the instant association shall pay the Defendant the sum of KRW 150,187,720 (the Plaintiff’s substitute payment amount of KRW 48,986,080, network C substitute payment amount of KRW 101,201,640) and the expenses that the instant association paid to the Defendant shall be settled directly with the instant association, and the Plaintiff shall not raise any civil and criminal objections with respect to the possession and indemnity of the instant land. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant building, prepared and submitted a written confirmation of substitute payment (hereinafter referred to as the “written confirmation”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 through 15, 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. Summary of the main defense

In this case where the plaintiff sought a confirmation of invalidity of the defendant's demand for reimbursement against the deceased C on October 8, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "request for confirmation of invalidity") and a return of 101,201,640 won in total of the compensation and arrears imposed on the deceased C that the union paid to the defendant, as unjust enrichment (hereinafter referred to as "request for payment of the amount of this case"), the defendant shall make the following main defenses:

1) Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the Defendant not to raise any civil or criminal objection with respect to the possession of the land in this case and the indemnity, etc., and thus, the instant lawsuit was filed in violation of the non-prosecution agreement, and is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights.

2) The Defendant imposed indemnity and late payment charge on the deceased C by the period of unauthorized occupation, and urged several times. The instant notice is not the first one among the series of repeated demands dispositions, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation. Thus, the part of the instant claim seeking nullification in the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

3) The claim for the payment of the instant money constitutes a civil lawsuit, not a party suit, and the part of the claim for invalidity confirmation is unlawful. Thus, the claim for the payment of the instant money does not meet the requirements as a related claim suit, and is unlawful.

B. Whether the action to confirm the invalidity of the instant case is legitimate

1) Determination on the assertion of violation of the Sub-committee agreement

In an administrative litigation, a non-committee special agreement that a party can not dispose of at will

As a subject of legal relationship, the right of action, which is a public authority to the State of a private person, is waived by an agreement between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du8919, Aug. 21, 1998).

The claim to nullify the invalidity of this case constitutes an appeal litigation as a form of administrative litigation, if any.

If the content of the instant agreement includes the purport that the Plaintiff would not have any administrative litigation disputing the illegality of the disposition related to indemnity against the Defendant, it is not permissible to waive the right of lawsuit under public law as an agreement by the parties. This part of the Defendant’s defense of safety is without merit.

2) Determination on the assertion that an administrative disposition is not an administrative disposition

A) If a person subject to a disposition of imposition of indemnity fails to pay the indemnity within the given period, it may be compulsorily collected in accordance with the procedures for default of national taxes. If the manager of state property demands the payment of the indemnity or late payment penalty, and then demands the same contents again, it shall be an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation as only the first demand is a collection disposition, which is subject to an administrative disposition. The same demand thereafter shall be a collection disposition, which is a premise for the disposition of default, and is merely a mere peremptory notice under the Civil Act, not a demand for interruption of extinctive prescription, which is a premise for the disposition of default, and thus does not directly affect the rights and obligations or legal status of the people (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu119, Jul. 13, 199; 2009Du14507, Dec. 24, 20

B) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the part corresponding to the [Attachment 8] No. 8-1 of the instant notice is a demand disposition made by the Defendant for the first time after the Defendant imposed indemnity for the period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 on April 29, 2015. The part corresponding to the No. 2 through No. 7-3 is a demand disposition for late payment after the Defendant issued a disposition imposing late payment penalty on November 25, 2014. The part corresponding to the No. 3 through No. 8-4 is both an administrative disposition subject to appeal as the disposition imposing late payment penalty, while the part corresponding to the above administrative disposition is both an administrative disposition subject to appeal (hereinafter referred to as "the instant disposition"), (2) the part corresponding to the attached Table No. 1 to No. 7-1 and No. 6-2, all of which fall under all of the instant notice, and thus, cannot be seen as a mere demand disposition for the second or more of the instant disposition imposing late payment penalty.

C) Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on October 8, 2019 regarding the demand for the confirmation of each claim for the confirmation of the payment of compensation corresponding to the No. 1 through No. 7-1 and the No. 1 through No. 6-2 of the attached Table No. 1 to 7-1 of the Defendant’s demand for the confirmation of each claim for the confirmation of the arrears corresponding to the above No. 1 through No.

C. Whether the lawsuit on the claim for payment of the instant money is legitimate – Determination as to the assertion of violation of the non-committee agreement

1) In a case where there is an agreement not to file a lawsuit even in dispute over a specific right or legal relationship, a lawsuit filed in violation of the said agreement has no interest in the protection of rights, and where there is an opposing opinion on the validity or scope of the agreement to file a lawsuit, the decision shall be made after reasonably interpreting the intention of the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da80449, Nov. 28, 2013). Meanwhile, in a case where a contractual party prepares a certain contractual content in writing as a disposal document, the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the declaration of intent shall be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72572, May 24, 2002).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff agreed to pay to the Defendant the Defendant the sum of KRW 101,201,640,00,000 for the indemnity and arrears that the Defendant should pay to the Defendant. The expenses that the instant association paid to the Defendant directly to the Defendant shall be settled with the instant union and agreed not to file any civil and criminal complaints with the Defendant regarding the possession and indemnity of the instant land, etc. In light of the objective meaning and content of the text, it is reasonable to deem that the instant association is an indemnite agreement formed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in relation to the payment to the Defendant by the Defendant.

However, on October 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 101,201,640, which the instant association paid to the Defendant on the premise that the entire disposition of demanding the payment of indemnities of KRW 101,201,640 against the Defendant’s net C (the same as seen earlier is mixed with the disposition of imposing late payment and demanding the payment of late payment) is null and void (it is possible to give up the right in advance by the agreement of the parties in light of the nature of civil litigation). This part of the lawsuit is filed in violation of the above agreement on the lawsuit, and is unlawful as there is no benefit of protecting rights. This part of the Defendant’s main defense is with merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant disposition is null and void by an administrative disposition against the deceased.

2) The instant disposition was made after the completion of the extinctive prescription of the right to collect indemnity and arrears against the deceased C, and is void as a matter of course.

(b) Markets:

1) An administrative disposition against a deceased person is null and void, and an administrative disposition is not effective even if the written disposition was served on his/her heir (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 68Nu190, Jan. 21, 1969).

2) On August 29, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the deceased C on October 8, 2019, which was after the death of the deceased C, as recognized earlier. As such, the instant disposition is serious due to the administrative disposition against the deceased, and its defect is apparent in external form, and thus constitutes abrupt invalidation. The Plaintiff, the heir of the deceased C, is also the benefit to seek confirmation that the instant disposition is null and void. The Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the defendant's demand for the confirmation of the invalidity of each of the demanding disposition of compensation corresponding to No. 1 through No. 6-2 of the attached Table No. 1 to No. 7-1 of the defendant against the deceased C on October 8, 2019 and the part of the claim for the payment of interest or delay damages corresponding to No. 101,201,640 and the corresponding interest or delay damages corresponding thereto are dismissed, respectively, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.