B. Whether there is a legal interest in seeking nullification and revocation of the act of guidance or vicarious execution itself, where the vicarious execution based on the guidance and disposition is completed as a factual act

B. If the execution of the vicarious execution based on the guidance and disposition has already been completed as a factual act, there is no legal interest to seek nullification or revocation of the guidance and disposition or the execution of the vicarious execution itself.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. On the first to fourth grounds

According to Article 56-2 (1), (4), (5), etc. of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991), a person who is dissatisfied with a disposition of fine for negligence under Article 56-2 (1) of the same Act as in this case may raise an objection to the imposing authority within 30 days from the date he becomes aware of such disposition, and when such objection is raised, the imposing authority shall notify the competent court without delay, and the competent court in receipt of such notice shall decide on the fine for negligence pursuant to the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act. According to the above legal provisions, the propriety of the disposition of fine for negligence imposed under the same Act shall be determined only by the procedure under the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act. Thus, the above disposition of fine for negligence shall not be deemed an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu16833, Nov. 23, 1993).

The decision of the court below, which appears to the same purport, is correct, and the decision of the court below did not dismiss the part of the lawsuit seeking nullification or revocation of the imposition of the fine for negligence in this case, because the court below did not dismiss it as a duplicate lawsuit, and therefore, the decision of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the prohibition of double lawsuit, and all of the remaining arguments are nothing more than criticism that the imposition of the fine for negligence in this case is unlawful on the premise that the above part of the lawsuit is legitimate.

2. On the fifth and sixth grounds

As determined by the court below, if the execution of vicarious execution based on the guidance and disposition of this case had already been completed as a factual act, there is no legal interest to seek the confirmation or revocation of the confirmation and disposition of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Nu242, Nov. 13, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu14271, Nov. 9, 1993). The judgment of the court below to the same effect is just.

In the above case, the above ruling 93Nu14271 delivered on November 9, 1993 does not judge that there exists a benefit of lawsuit like the theory in the above case, and it is not a debate to criticize that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the premise that a partial lawsuit seeking the nullification or revocation of the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. On the seventh and eighth grounds

As determined by the court below, as long as the execution of removal counter-execution of the building of this case has already been completed, there is no legal interest in seeking the nullification or revocation of the execution of the vicarious execution itself, so the part of the lawsuit seeking the nullification or revocation of the said vicarious execution shall be dismissed as unlawful, and the part of the lawsuit seeking the nullification or revocation of the said vicarious execution shall also be dismissed as it is unlawful as it does not meet the litigation requirements.

As such, the judgment of the court below that the decision of the court below is correct as a result, and that the decision of the court below is not subject to administrative litigation as a simple fact-finding act for removal counter execution, it shall not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it shall not be discussed that the above part of the lawsuit is lawful, and that it is discussed on the premise

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)