[농지분배계약해제취소청구사건][고집1948특,199]
1. Definition of an administrative disposition;
2. Classification of private contracts and administrative dispositions;
3. Method of filing a complaint for the distribution of farmland, cancellation of auction disposition or cancellation; and
1. The term "administrative disposition" means an administrative disposition by the State or a public organization, etc. against a person under its control, which is the exercise of public authority in order to regulate legal relations under public law;
2. An administrative agency's act, even if it is an act of an administrative agency, under the principle of freedom of contract from an individual on an equal footing with a private individual to a private administrative agency or from a private individual to an administrative agency on an equal footing, is a contract under private law; however, an administrative agency's act, in order to achieve the purpose of public law, is an administrative disposition, such as a compulsory purchase of a property right from a person under its control and not a principle of freedom of contract from a person under its control, but a distribution in accordance with the order and conditions determined by the Act in accordance with the law
3.In a case where the State revokes or cancels a distribution or auction disposition made before that State after an administrative disposition of the State with respect to the distribution or auction of farmland became final and conclusive, it shall not be subject to a complaint through reconsideration or appeal in accordance with the provisions of Articles 22 and 24 of the Farmland Reform Act, but shall be subject to a complaint or suit in accordance with the Administrative Litigation Act.
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Law No. 213), Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act (Law No. 108), Article 24 of the Farmland Reform Act (Law No. 108)
Plaintiff
Jeonju City
The disposition that the defendant market is subject to the real estate recorded in the attached list on April 17, 4291 and the contract for distribution concluded between the plaintiff and the government shall be revoked.
Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The plaintiff's attorney is seeking a judgment of the Dong-dong branch, and as the cause of the plaintiff's claim, the government stated in the separate sheet to 915,000 won by an agreement to sell real estate recorded in the separate sheet on October 27, 428 through a public auction under the Farmland Reform Act for five years, and the defendant Si has paid two installments in installments, and the defendant Si issued a disposition of rescission of the favorable contract without any reasons such as the delivery of the real estate, on April 17, 4291, while the branch of the Dong-dong branch of the Dong-dong branch of the Dong-dong branch of the Dong-dong branch of the Province, it stated that the plaintiff's response was reached to the claim, and that the plaintiff's request for improvement of the farmland distribution contract was not accepted by the plaintiff's plaintiff's agent, and that the plaintiff's request for improvement of the farmland distribution contract was not accepted as a legal act under the Civil Procedure Act, and that the plaintiff's request for improvement of the farmland distribution contract was not accepted as a part of the plaintiff's auction contract under its private law.
Since the defendant Si claims that farmland distribution under the Farmland Reform Act or farmland auction act is not an administrative disposition, but a juristic act under private law, it is an administrative disposition to which the State or a public organization, etc. exercises public authority to regulate legal relations under the public law. Therefore, even if an administrative agency's act is an act of administrative agency, it is an act of administrative agency to sell a son's property right from one person or one person to an administrative agency under the principle of freedom of contract at the same time on equal terms with each other, under the principle of free contract. However, in order for an administrative agency to achieve the purpose of public law, it is an act of administrative agency to compulsorily purchase any property right from a person under its control and distribute it to a person who meets the order and conditions determined by the law as stipulated by the law, not in the principle of freedom of contract, but in accordance with the law, it is an administrative disposition. Therefore, it is nothing more than the administrative litigation procedure's cancellation of land purchase and sale of land at the time of execution under the Land Expropriation Decree, etc.
In addition, in Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, the defendant City argued that the person who has an objection as a matter of this Act concerning the enforcement of this Act shall file a request for reconsideration with the Committee within 20 days following the day on which he received the notification to the Location Committee, and that the lawsuit is unlawful because it did not file such request for reconsideration. Thus, it is a provision that is before the completion of the distribution of farmland and there is no re-existence or re-establishment of appeal with respect to the distribution or auction of farmland within 20 days after the legal deadline from the interested parties. Therefore, if the State's administrative disposition concerning the distribution or auction of farmland becomes final and conclusive and the State's administrative disposition concerning the distribution or auction of farmland is identical to the cancellation or cancellation of the distribution or auction disposition made before the State, it shall not be subject to re-issuance or appeal pursuant to the provisions of Articles 22 and 24 of the same Act, but it shall be interpreted that the plaintiff or the plaintiff under the Administrative Litigation Act is not subject to appeal
On October 27, 4288, the Plaintiff sold the real estate listed in the [Attachment] List (including multi plant cultivation farmland) to the government for the last year at KRW 915,00,000 and paid the two-minutes of the amount in installments at the end of April, 17, 4291 by the Defendant at the end of the year, there is no dispute between the parties, and the Defendant City distributed multi plant cultivation land only to those who have knowledge and experience in fruit cultivation or management, but there is no difference between the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no knowledge and experience, and there is no such restriction under the Farmland Reform Act. (See Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree, Articles 22 through 32 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 21 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the term is unreasonable, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the term is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.
Judge Gyeong-chul (Presiding Judge)