[1] The meaning of an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation

[2] Standing to sue in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of administrative disposition

[3] The case holding that the act of sending a "information on the unit sale contract by the partner" which instructs partners to respond to the unit sale contract by the deadline does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation and there is no legal interest to seek confirmation of non-existence of the contract

[1] The term "administrative disposition", which is the object of an appeal litigation, means an act of an administrative agency under public law, which causes direct changes in the specific 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 regard to a specific matter, and shall be individually determined according to which the subject, content, procedure, and form satisfies the requirements of its establishment or validity.

[2] A lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of an administrative disposition can be instituted only by a person who has a legal interest in seeking confirmation of non-existence of an administrative disposition. Here, legal interest in this context is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment of confirmation where there is infinite and danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal

[3] The case holding that the act of sending a "information on the unit sale contract by the partner" which instructs partners to respond to the unit sale contract by the deadline does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation and there is no legal interest to seek confirmation of non-existence of the contract

[1] Articles 1 [general administrative disposition], 2, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 20 and 42 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [general administrative disposition] Articles 2, 19, and 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu12619 delivered on December 10, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 374), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu962 delivered on March 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1636), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu909 delivered on November 21, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 88), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu433 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1418), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6202 delivered on July 10, 198 (Gong1998Ha, 209Du98989 delivered on June 25, 1999 (Gong1998Du9798989 delivered on June 29, 209)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

○○-2 Housing Redevelopment Association (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu12234 delivered on March 8, 2001

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs. The defendant of the first instance judgment and the first instance judgment's "O○○-2 Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives" are corrected to "O○○-2 Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives", respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term "administrative disposition", which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to an act of an administrative agency under public law, which directly causes a change in the specific rights and obligations of citizens, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations under Acts and subordinate statutes, or causing other legal effects on a specific matter. It is individually determined according to the subject, content, procedure, and form of the administrative agency, which satisfies the requirements for establishment or validity (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu9099, Nov. 21, 1995; 93Nu12619, Dec. 10, 1993; 93Nu12619, Dec. 10, 199), and a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of an administrative disposition can be instituted only by a person who has legal interest in seeking confirmation of the non-existence of an administrative disposition. Here, legal interest is recognized as the most effective means to obtain a judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6396, Sept. 28, 1990).

According to the facts and records duly admitted by the court below, while implementing a housing redevelopment project in Zone 4-2, the defendant, who is the redevelopment association, is not in the position of the association members on January 29, 200. The business expenses to be borne by the association members after the resolution of the special general meeting of association members, shall be treated by applying mutatis mutandis the method for payment of the purchase price of the general apartment, but the sale price of the association members shall be concluded within 30 days from the commencement date of the sale, and it shall be approved by the head of Gwanak-gu on March 20, 200. The defendant shall inform the association members, including the plaintiffs, of the fact on March 25, 200, the apartment purchase price of the association members at the time of the sale contract (i.e., the purchase price - the amount of the association members' part of the purchase price - 60% of the purchase price of the association members at the time of the sale contract or 20% of the price of the association members at the time of the sale contract.

The judgment of the court below is just in its conclusion that although there are some deficiencies in the explanation of its reason, the notification of this case does not constitute an administrative disposition, and there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of non-existence of the notification of this case, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the subject of appeal litigation or the interest in confirmation, as otherwise alleged in the

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, and it is obvious that the defendant '○○○○-2' of the first instance judgment and the first instance judgment of the lower court is a clerical error in the '○○-2 Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives' of the ○○○○○-2 Housing Redevelopment Association', so it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed each ex officio correction in accordance with Article 211, Paragraph 1

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)