기타(일반행정)
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that “The land indicated in the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “the instant land”) should be released from the agriculture promotion area in accordance with the guidelines for promoting the change and cancellation of the agriculture promotion area, but the Defendant’s non-performance of the land constitutes deviation and abuse of discretionary power, and thus, the Defendant released each of the instant land from the agriculture promotion area.”
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit
A. Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act divides the type of the administrative litigation into an appeal litigation, a party litigation, a civil suit, and an agency litigation. Article 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act stipulates that the type of the administrative litigation is “a revocation litigation” seeking the revocation or alteration of a disposition, etc. by an administrative agency, “a litigation seeking the revocation or alteration of a disposition, etc. by an administrative agency,” “a litigation seeking confirmation of invalidity, etc. by an administrative agency,” and “an action seeking confirmation of illegality by an administrative agency’s omission” only
Therefore, under the current Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking performance of a duty to order an administrative agency to actively perform a certain act or to seek an implementation of an administrative disposition is not recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu868, Sept. 12, 1989; 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s seek against the Defendant for “e.g., cancellation of each land of this case in the agriculture promotion area” against the Defendant is deemed to constitute a lawsuit seeking performance of a duty to order the Defendant, who is an administrative agency, to actively perform a certain act, and this is not allowed under the current Administrative Litigation Act (the Plaintiff maintains the above form of lawsuit despite the order of the court ordering the review of the purport of the claim). Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case pertaining
B. Even if the Defendant claimed the Plaintiff’s claim, the agricultural promotion area was cancelled by the Defendant against the Plaintiff.