[행정처분취소][집18(2)행,021]
An order for removal of a building and an order for restriction of disposition by the head of a Si having jurisdiction over the Gu is an administrative disposition that is void only without authority, and the administrative disposition that is void is not subject to Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act in administrative litigation that is subject to litigation.
Article 12 of the former Administrative Litigation Act (Act No. 213, Aug. 24, 51) shall not apply to any administrative litigation over which the administrative disposition of invalidation is subject to an administrative disposition.
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 4(2) of the Building Act
Supreme Court Decision 68Nu18 Decided August 23, 1968
Plaintiff
The head of Busan Dong-gu
Daegu High Court Decision 69Gu12 delivered on April 8, 1970
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney is examined.
In accordance with the main sentence of Article 2-3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act Article 4(2) of the same Act, the authority that can be delegated to the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Busan Metropolitan City Mayor, and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having the Gu shall be limited to the permission for construction prescribed in Article 5 of the Building Act or the receipt of a report on extension within a total floor area of 10 square meters, and the authority on measures for violating buildings, etc. prescribed in Article 42 of the Building Act shall not be delegated (see Supreme Court Decision 68Nu18, Aug. 23, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 68Nu18, Aug. 23, 196). Accordingly, it is justifiable to determine that the order for removal and the order for guidance made by the head of the
The paper is without merit.
The second ground of appeal is examined.
However, in the sense that the administrative disposition of invalidation can be claimed through administrative litigation in the sense that the revocation of the administrative disposition can be sought by the administrative litigation, and it does not necessarily require the restoration of civil damage and the prevention of the failure thereof due to the infringement of rights by civil litigation, and it is clear that the administrative litigation of this case was conducted only for a part of the building of this case and that the execution of the part is not completed, it is not clear that the administrative litigation of this case does not have any interest in the lawsuit.
The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.
However, as mentioned earlier, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act is not applicable to the administrative litigation of this case where the administrative disposition of this case is subject to the administrative disposition of nullification of invalidation of validity by an unauthorized administrative agency. The arguments are groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of appeal.
The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho