[입주승인취소처분취소][집43②509 ; 공1995.9.1.(999),2998]
Where the system, which served as the basis for the disposition, is abolished due to the amendment or repeal of statutes after the administrative disposition, and the administrative disposition is revoked, whether there is a legal interest in demanding the revocation of the disposition.
In a case where the approval for moving-in is revoked after the abolition of the Act on Special Measures for the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages under Article 2 (1) of the "Act on Special Measures for the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages" (repealed pursuant to Article 4228 of the Addenda of the "Act on Special Measures for the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages"), and the other party to the disposition that has concluded a sales contract for part of the factory site in the city complex after obtaining approval for moving-in, and the other party to the disposition did not pay the sale price, etc., and the approval of the business plan under the "Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Income" was abolished after the enactment and implementation of the "Industrial Sites and Development Act", the approval for moving-in has already been revoked due to the abolition of the "Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Income Sources", as well as the disposition has already become invalid due to the abolition of the "Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Development" and the disposition has already cancelled the approval of moving-in after the abolition of the Act.
Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 10 of the former Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Income Sources (repealed by Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, Act No. 4228 of Apr. 7, 190), Article 3 (2) of the Addenda
[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 1 other than Defendant 1
Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Daejeon High Court Decision 93Gu1587 delivered on June 3, 1994
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The instant lawsuit is dismissed.
The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Before determining the grounds of appeal, this paper examined ex officio.
According to the records, the defendant moved into an agro-industrial complex under the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Income Sources, which was enforced on December 28, 1990 at that time, and made a disposition of approval for the business plan (approval for moving into an agro-industrial complex) to be implemented by the defendant, and thereafter, the public city entered into a sales contract with the plaintiffs for part of the factory site within the agro-industrial complex. However, if the plaintiffs did not pay advance for the sale price, the defendant can find the fact that the above disposition of approval for moving into an agro-industrial complex was revoked on March 9
However, upon the enactment of the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages on April 7, 1990, the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, which had been enforced at the time when the defendant approved the project plan of this case, was repealed as Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, and Article 2 (2) of the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages on January 13, 1990 provided that matters related to the agricultural and fishing village development district of the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages shall be governed by the previous provisions before the enforcement date of the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (hereinafter the "Industrial Sites Act"). Since the Industrial Sites Act was enforced on January 13, 1991, the matters related to the agricultural village development district of the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages were governed by the Industrial Sites Act. Since Article 3 (2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Development, the Act or the provisions on the Act on the Act's.
Despite the abolition of the system on the approval of the project plan under the Industrial Sites Development Promotion Act due to the enactment and enforcement of the Industrial Sites Act, the defendant revoked the approval of occupancy in this case on March 9, 1993. However, the above approval of occupancy in this case had no legal basis due to the abolition of the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, and the disposition of revocation was made after the abolition of the Act on the Promotion of Development of Income in Agricultural and Fishing Villages, and the above disposition of revocation was also made after the abolition of the Act on the Promotion of Development of Income in Agricultural and Fishing Villages. Since the defendant revoked the above approval of occupancy in this case which has already lost its effect, it does not affect the contract under the private law on the site in an agro-industrial complex between the plaintiffs and public cities in public cities, it does not have any practical need to seek its cancellation and there is no legal interest. Therefore, even though the lawsuit in this case has no legal interest, the court below cannot avoid its reversal
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is sufficient to render a direct judgment, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit is assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)