B. The meaning of “irreparable damages” under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

B. The phrase “irreparable damages” as stipulated in Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act refers to damages that cannot be compensated in money unless there are special circumstances. This refers to not only where monetary compensation is impossible, but also where monetary compensation is monetary compensation, it refers to the type and intangible damages where the party against whom administrative disposition was taken cannot withstanding for reference or where it is considerably difficult to check for reference.

If we gather explanatory materials of the court below, the other party (limited to the applicant for the original trial; hereinafter the other party) made a sales contract with the re-appellant (limited to the re-appellant; hereinafter the same party) to purchase the above 48,631 square meters of land in Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City ( Address omitted), 22,584 square meters of 13,584 square meters of land, 23, and 3,075,000 won of the above 3,07,500,000 won of the above 307,50,500 won of the down payment, and the remaining payment date of the above 1985.2. The re-appellant, after cancelling the above sales contract on July 2, 1984, it is recognized that there is a possibility that the above 107,500,000 won of the above 307,000 won of the above 15th,000 won of the above 7th,0019.

The summary of the grounds for reappeal is that the disposition of dismissal of unjust enterprisers in this case was duly made in accordance with the Budget and Accounts Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and therefore, even if the above disposition was executed, there is no possibility that it would cause irreparable damage to the other party. Thus, the order of the court below that suspended the validity of the

However, in a case seeking suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition or suspension of execution, it is not necessary to determine the legitimacy of the administrative disposition itself, and the existence or absence of the requirements under the Administrative Litigation Act as to whether such administrative disposition will be suspended (see Supreme Court Order 83F12, Apr. 12, 1962). Thus, the court below reviewed only the requirements under Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act without determining the legitimacy of the disposition of the improper businessman in this case, and it cannot be said that there was any error in the judgment. Meanwhile, Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "if it is deemed urgently necessary to prevent damage that may arise due to the disposition of the cancellation lawsuit or its execution or its continuation, it is difficult to determine the validity of the above disposition or the suspension of its execution or its continuation, etc. by the party's request or ex officio, and therefore, it is difficult for the court below to consider that the above disposition of the improper businessman in this case cannot be restored to the other party's opinion or its continuation of execution or procedure."

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)