[행정처분취소·용역비감액조치처분취소][집30(3)특,304;공1983.1.15.(696),110]
Whether an administrative disposition is subject to administrative litigation by a reduction in the price under the contract for urban planning production service by the Si (negative)
The instant service contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is a contract that is concluded by the defendant's payment of a certain price as a private economic entity and the expression of intent to make an order for long-term comprehensive development plan and urban planning drawing-making service and the plaintiff's expression of intent to supply the price in accordance with its purport. Thus, it is not a contract under private law, but a contract under private law. Thus, the defendant's reduction of the price is a state agency that is the order of the above service, and is merely a contractual measure that is equal to the plaintiff, and thus, it does not result in limiting the plaintiff's right to claim the service price and the effect
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act
The Korea Land Comprehensive Technology Corporation
Msan Market
Daegu High Court Decision 81Gu179 delivered on July 6, 1982
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.
In a case where an administrative agency performs a legal act with a general economic entity as a holder of public authority, not as a holder of public authority, but as a private economic entity in a general property law, it is an issue that it should be regulated as a general judicial effect, and it cannot be said that it has an effect under the public law. According to the records, the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff is illegal to take measures to reduce the excessive amount of service charges on the ground that the service charges were calculated in excess of the service charges due to erroneous application of the current state drawings in the judgment, although the plaintiff concluded a long-term comprehensive development plan with the defendant and the urban planning production service contract with the defendant and completed the prescribed work, the plaintiff is paid in full. However, the above service contract is illegal. Accordingly, the above service contract is not a holder of the public authority, but is a private economic entity, and the plaintiff's expression of intent to pay a certain amount in accordance with its purport is made in accordance with the contract under private law. The defendant's above reduction disposition is not subject to the plaintiff's right to claim the service charges under the administrative litigation against the plaintiff.
From the same view of the court below, the decision of the court below is just and just to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that the dispute against it is not the object of civil litigation and it is not the object of administrative litigation.
The logic of appeal is nothing more than the independent opinion of the appellant.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit, 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 Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)