B. In a case where a separate lawsuit disputing the validity of an adjudication itself is pending, whether the court hearing the appeal case seeking the revocation of a revocation disposition in accordance with the purport of the adjudication can determine the propriety of the claim

B. It cannot be said that the court which reviewed the appeal case seeking the revocation of the revocation disposition pursuant to the purport of the adjudication on the ground that the other party to the disposition of revocation in accordance with the purport of the adjudication filed a separate lawsuit claiming the validity of the adjudication itself, and that the judgment was not final and conclusive in that lawsuit cannot determine

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the provisions of Article 37 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act, a ruling has the effect of binding an administrative agency that is the respondent, and if a ruling authority deems a request for a cancellation trial reasonable and orders a disposition to revoke the disposition to the disposition agency, the disposition agency should revoke the disposition in accordance with the purport of the ruling. However, if a disposition of revocation in accordance with the purport of the ruling is illegal, the other party to the disposition of revocation is not able to file a dispute as an appeal litigation.

In addition, a court which examines an appeal case seeking the revocation of a disposition of revocation in accordance with the purport of the adjudication on the ground that the other party to the disposition of revocation filed a separate lawsuit disputing the validity of the adjudication itself, and that the judgment was not final and conclusive, cannot be said to have determined the validity of the claim.

The judgment of the court below is correct in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the binding force of adjudication or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. The grounds for appeal are without merit.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

In light of the records, we agree with the fact-finding of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or errors in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the assertion of arguments. There is no reason for the argument.

In addition, among the grounds of appeal in this case, the resolution of the board of directors on October 20, 1987, which appointed the non-party inducement as the representative director of the defendant joining the defendant as the representative director of the defendant joining the defendant, is null and void, and it is apparent in the record that the defendant or the defendant joining the defendant did not have asserted in the court below, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal as to the judgment below. Thus, this argument

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)