[환수금세입조치처분무효확인][공1992.5.1.(919),1321]
In case where a person subject to a disposition of anti-payment of expenses under Article 13 of the Public Officials Education and Training Act has already paid the returned amount imposed by the said disposition, whether there is a benefit of confirmation seeking confirmation as an independent lawsuit for nullification of the said disposition (negative)
If a person subject to a disposition of anti-payment of expenses under Article 13 of the Public Officials Education and Training Act has already paid the returned amount imposed by the above disposition and the execution of the disposition has been terminated, the same external appearance as the above disposition exists and there is no apprehension or risk in the rights and legal status of the person subject to the above disposition in the future. Therefore, there is no benefit to confirm the invalidity of the above disposition as an independent lawsuit, separate from the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the returned amount paid on the ground that the disposition is null and void.
Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 13 of the Education and Training of Public Officials Act
Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Nu476 Decided March 23, 1982 (Gong1982,441) 89Nu3397 Decided October 10, 1989 (Gong1989,1690) 91Nu3840 Decided September 10, 1991 (Gong191,2551)
Plaintiff
The Rural Development Administration
Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu7472 delivered on May 8, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
If a person who has been subject to a disposition for counter-payment of expenses under Article 13 of the Public Officials Education and Training Act has already paid the returned amount imposed by the above disposition and thus the execution of the disposition has been terminated, there remains the same external appearance as that of the person subject to the above disposition and legal status. Thus, the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the returned amount paid on the ground that the disposition is null and void shall not have a benefit to confirm the invalidity of the disposition as an independent lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 74Nu159, Feb. 10, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 80Nu532, Jan. 13, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 80Nu476, Mar. 23, 198; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu133, Mar. 8, 198; Supreme Court Decision 8Nu5129, Apr. 25, 198; 8Nu19839, Mar. 1989, 1989).
In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the lawsuit of this case on account of its illegality is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in confirmation like the theory of lawsuit, or in the infringement of constitutional rights, and the remainder of the arguments are all related to the merits or related to the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment against the State, and thus cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal against the judgment below.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)