(b) In a case where construction of reported matters under the Building Act is intended, whether it is not necessary to wait for the measures such as accepting reports from the administrative agency, such as accepting reports from the administrative agency;

(c) The defendant's standing to file a lawsuit seeking revocation or nullification.

B. With respect to the reported matters under the Building Act, if a person who wants to construct only files a report that satisfies the lawful requirements, it is not necessary to build a building, and it is not necessary to put a group of measures such as the repair disposition by an administrative agency.

C. The administrative litigation seeking the revocation or invalidity confirmation of an administrative disposition is, in principle, an administrative agency that conducts an administrative disposition, etc., which is the subject of the lawsuit outside its name, as the defendant.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff filed a report on the installation of the wall in this case with a view to installing a wall with a length of 18 square meters and a height of 1.8 square meters on the building site in this case owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant asserted that the above report was rejected without any legal basis, and that the return disposition in this case made by the defendant as of March 22, 1993 was legitimate and in accordance with the relevant

2. However, an administrative disposition, which is the object of appeal, refers to an act of an administrative agency under public law, which is directly related to the rights and obligations of citizens, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or giving rise to other legal effects with respect to a specific matter, and an act, etc. which does not directly cause legal changes in the legal status of the other party or other related persons, is not an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 78Nu379 delivered on October 14, 1980). According to the records, the Plaintiff reported the installation of the wall in this case to the head of Dongdaemun-gu Dong for the installation of the wall in order to install a fence of 18§³ and a height of 1.8§³ on the site of this case owned by the Plaintiff, and the establishment of the above head of the Dong has

However, with respect to the reported matters under the Building Act, a building can be constructed only if the person who intends to build the building makes a report that satisfies the lawful requirements, and it does not need to wait for the group, such as the administrative agency's repair disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2468, Jun. 12, 1990). Moreover, as in this case, a fence installation work with a height of less than 2 meters is possible without any permission or report under the provisions of the Building Act or the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Urban Planning Act, and the Plaintiff reported the installation of the wall in this case without knowing such circumstances and rejected it by the said newly established head, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition with the purport of directly changing the Plaintiff's specific rights and duties.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, to determine the return of the above report as an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation.

3. Meanwhile, as a matter of principle, an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition or the confirmation of invalidity shall be the defendant of an administrative disposition, etc., which is the subject of the lawsuit, under the provisions of Articles 9 and 71(3) of the Building Act, and Article 117(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the authority of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu to accept the building report under Article 9 of the Building Act is delegated to the head of the Dong. According to the records, the plaintiff reported the installation of the wall against the head of the newly established Dong, and the return of the report is also recognized that the head of the newly established Dong

Thus, the head of Dongdaemun-gu who is the defendant in this case is not the right to accept the building report under the Building Act, and there was no return disposition against the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant is not qualified. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to accept the building report and the defendant's eligibility for appeal under the Building Act, on the premise that the defendant's return disposition of this case was made with excessive error.

4. Therefore, without examining the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio by a party member, and it is deemed sufficient to directly judge a party member. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff. It is so decided as per

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)