[매매계약해제처분무효확인][집18(3)행,028]
The validity of the decision of the Board of Audit and Inspection on demand for correction which is achieved while administrative litigation is filed.
The validity of the decision of the Board of Audit and Inspection on demand for correction which is achieved while administrative litigation is filed.
Article 44 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 6(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Rules, Article 6(2) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Rules
Plaintiff
Head of the Cleanness Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 69Gu235 delivered on May 9, 1970
We reverse the original judgment.
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 as to the defendant's sulfurist.
In examining the original judgment, on the premise that the decision of the Board of Audit and Inspection to revoke the sale and purchase of the property devolving upon the Board of Audit and Inspection at June 29, 1965 and the administrative disposition to revoke the cancellation of the contract by the defendant on September 24, 1965 under Article 44 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, which again canceled the sale and sale of the property devolving upon the Board of Audit and Inspection at the Board of Audit and Inspection at the same time, has a certain administrative purpose. The above decision of the Board of Audit and Inspection at the Board of Audit and Inspection at the time of filing an administrative litigation against an administrative disposition, which is in conflict with Article 6(1) and (2) of the Rules of the Board of Audit and Inspection (Article 6(1) of the Rules of the Board of Audit and Inspection (Article 6(2)) of the Rules of the Board of Audit and Inspection (Article 6(2)) of the Rules of the Board of Audit and Inspection at the same time, shall be null and void.
However, according to Article 44, Article 45 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, if the Board of Audit and Inspection notifies the head of the related agency of the determination of the request for correction by the interested person, and the head of the related agency in receipt of the notification requires him to take appropriate measures based on the notification. On the other hand, Article 36 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act provides that the applicant for review is not listed in the applicant for review of the determination of the request for correction by the Board of Audit and Inspection, it cannot be deemed as infringing on the rights of the interested person only by the determination of the Board of Audit and Inspection's request for correction, and only when the administrative agency makes a certain administrative disposition by the decision of the Board of Audit and Inspection's request for correction, it is reasonable to view that the interests of the interested person are infringed. Therefore, even if the decision of the Board of Audit and Inspection's request for correction was made in violation of Article 6, Article 6, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of the Board of Audit and Inspection's audit and Inspection's decision, it cannot be deemed that the administrative disposition was defective due to the reason for cancellation of the internal administrative disposition.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon