[매립협약해제결정취소][공1984.8.15.(734),1290]
Whether cancellation of the Public Waters Reclamation Convention by local governments is an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation (negative)
The Public Waters Reclamation Convention of this case is a contract for reclamation business in which a local government becomes the main body of a reclamation project under Article 29(1) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act and local residents in the jurisdiction are responsible for the execution of a reclamation project and distribute farmland created by a reclamation project. Such reclamation agreement constitutes a legal act conducted as a private economic entity, and such cancellation of the above agreement is not an administrative act that exercises the right to rescind the agreement as a party to the above contract and is not an administrative act that a local government has superior power.
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 29 (1) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act
Plaintiff 1 and 1 other plaintiffs, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Kimpo-gun, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee
Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu352 delivered on June 17, 1982
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. The plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 are examined together.
In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the reclamation agreement of approximately 205 nuclear waters, which was entered into with the defendant on November 29, 1978 as the representative of the 111 ambi-gun Saemaul Cooperative Center, is a local government under Article 29 (1) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, which is the main body of the above ambi-gun reclamation project, and is merely a private legal act conducted by the ambi-gun as a private economic entity, and it should be regulated as the effects of the general law, and it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition that has the effects of the public law. Accordingly, the court below's decision that the above ambi-Mai-Mai-Mai-ri's reclamation agreement was a private legal act conducted by the ambi-gun as the main body of the public authority, and as the residents of the ambi-si branch as the main body of the above ambi-Mai-si, which was concluded with the defendant on the ground that it did not constitute an administrative cancellation of the above agreement.
2. We examine the second ground for appeal.
We cannot accept the conclusion of the judgment of the court below on the premise of a new argument that was not asserted by the court below.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)