A. In the case of a consolidation of related lawsuits under Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the legality of the original lawsuit shall extend to the combined lawsuit for consideration.

B. The content of a request for revocation of an administrative disposition cannot be deemed to include a claim for nullification of the administrative disposition.

As long as the plaintiff seeks revocation of an administrative disposition as its purport, the court below does not have a duty to ask the plaintiff to seek confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition, and the content of a claim for revocation of an administrative disposition shall not be deemed to include the purport of seeking confirmation of invalidity.

Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 205 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

The head of Busan Jin-gu and one other

Daegu High Court Decision 68Gu11 delivered on February 11, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

However, with respect to an act ordered to an obligor under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, after taking the guidance under Article 3 of the same Act and the notification procedure under a letter of order for vicarious execution, the revocation of the disposition is to be sought for the reason of illegality of the act, and there is no benefit in the protection of rights (Supreme Court Decision 65Nu25 delivered on May 31, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 67Nu115 delivered on October 23, 1967), so long as the building in this case was already removed, even if the court below's reasoning was unlawful, it is just to have determined that there is no benefit in seeking revocation in the meaning of seeking nullification of the order for provisional disposition, etc., as long as the building in this case was already removed, and there is no interest in seeking revocation in the meaning of seeking nullification of the order for provisional disposition, etc.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, the judgment below's consolidation of related lawsuits stipulated in Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act requires the administrative litigation, which is the original litigation, to be legitimate. However, it is just to determine that the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs for revocation of the disposition of revocation of the plaintiffs was dismissed as illegal as at the time of original ruling, and that the lawsuit filed for consolidation is also dismissed as there is a defect in the requirements for the lawsuit, and thus, it cannot be adopted as an objection.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

However, insofar as the Plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the administrative disposition as the purport of the lawsuit in this case as the purport of the lawsuit in this case, the court below does not have a duty to ask the Plaintiff to seek the confirmation of invalidity of the administrative disposition in this case, and the content of the claim for the revocation of the administrative disposition can not be deemed to include the purport of seeking the confirmation of invalidity (Supreme Court Decision 4294Da4 delivered on November 9, 1961). Accordingly, the appeal disputing the legitimate measures of the court below cannot be adopted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of appeal.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho