In a lawsuit claiming a revocation of a warrant for the issuance of a warrant for vicarious execution, which is a subsequent disposition, whether it can be argued that the notice of issuance of a warrant for vicarious execution is unlawful on the ground that the prior disposition is illegal (affirmative)

In order to secure the performance of the administrative obligation that can be performed by another person on behalf of another person, such as a notice by a warrant for vicarious execution, vicarious execution, execution of vicarious execution, and payment order for expenses for vicarious execution, etc., are carried out in a series of stages in order to achieve the same administrative purpose, and a single legal effect is generated by combining each other. Thus, if a prior disposition, which is a disposition, causes a single legal effect, is an illegal disposition where there is a defect, even though the defect is not significant and obvious, it cannot be viewed as a disposition for invalidation, and it is not sufficient to dispute with an administrative litigation, and even if there is no defect in the notification itself, which is a subsequent disposition to issue a warrant for vicarious execution, which is a disposition for cancellation of a warrant for vicarious execution, which is a subsequent disposition, even if there is no defect, it is illegal that a prior disposition, which is a disposition for cancellation of a warrant for vicarious execution, is an illegal disposition, which is a cause of claim, and thus,

Articles 2, 3, and 5 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act; Articles 1, 12, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu947 delivered on January 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 540) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4567 delivered on February 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 986) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu14271 delivered on November 9, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 101)

Korea Youth Association (Attorney Doh-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu27224 delivered on July 27, 1995

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff's voluntary removal order or the above voluntary removal order as of July 14, 1970, and the above voluntary removal order or the above voluntary removal order as of July 10, 200, 200, notified the defendant's voluntary removal order or the above voluntary removal order as of July 13, 192, with the permission for display of the advertisement with the same size and contents as the above contents of the permission (hereinafter the advertisement of this case) as of July 10, 191, the court below rejected the above voluntary removal order or the above voluntary removal order as of July 14, 197. Thus, the plaintiff's removal order or the above voluntary removal order as of July 14, 199, and the defendant's removal order or removal order as of July 10, 200, notified the above order or the above voluntary removal order as to the above removal order to the plaintiff's non-performance order as of July 19, 2008.

However, in order to secure the performance of the administrative obligation that can be performed by another person on behalf of another person, such as a notice by a warrant for vicarious execution, vicarious execution, execution of vicarious execution, and payment order for expenses for vicarious execution, a series of procedures conducted in order to achieve the same administrative purpose, and a single legal effect is generated by combining each other. Thus, if a prior disposition, which is a prior disposition, causes a single legal effect, is illegal disposition, even though the defect is not significant and obvious, it cannot be viewed as a disposition for per se, and there is no dispute over the validity of an administrative litigation, and even if there is no defect in the subsequent disposition itself, it is illegal that the prior disposition, which is the cause of the claim for cancellation of the subsequent disposition for the issuance of warrant for vicarious execution, is illegal, and thus, it can be viewed that the prior disposition for the issuance of warrant for vicarious execution, which is a subsequent disposition, is also illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4567, Feb. 9, 193; 193Nu1394, Nov. 193, 1993).

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on whether there is such a defect as the plaintiff asserted in the previous order disposition of this case, and then should have judged on whether the issuance of the warrant of this case is legitimate. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the issuance of warrant of this case only for the reasons stated in its holding. The court below's decision is not erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the succession of defects between the prior order and the subsequent order disposition, thereby affecting the judgment. The arguments are with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)