The requirements for administrative disposition and the transfer of a lawsuit in relation to the ship and the future;

The order of removal of a building and the disposition of vicarious repair for its removal are not only in the relation of front and rear-down, but also related dispositions to the same object. Therefore, if a legitimate source of lawsuit is brought against the preceding order of removal, it can be asserted by administrative litigation even if the previous order of removal does not meet the requirements of the right of appeal.

Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 4289Da24 Decided June 19, 1956, Supreme Court Decision 4289Da124 Decided December 19, 1956

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

The head of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Litigation Performers, the last order

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu609 delivered on March 28, 1979

Supreme Court Decision 78Nu184 Delivered on November 14, 1978

The main claim part of the original judgment shall be reversed, and it shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal as to the conjunctive claim is dismissed.

The costs of the preliminary claim shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

Since the order of removal of a building and the order of removal of a vicarious execution for its removal are related to the same object as that of the vessel and the order of removal of a building are related to the same object, so long as a legitimate source of lawsuit is brought against the order of removal prior to the order of removal, it is reasonable to bring an objection against the order of removal through administrative litigation even if the order of removal, which is the subsequent disposition, does not meet the requirements of removal. However, according to the records of this case, even though the plaintiff filed a legitimate source of lawsuit against the order of removal of a building on Jan. 19, 1977, as stated in Gap evidence 3, the defendant did not make any judgment against it, but it is deemed that the defendant made a vicarious disposition for removal of the building of this case, which is a vicarious disposition for removal of the building of this case, and it is not necessary to newly satisfy the requirements of removal by administrative litigation as stated earlier.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim is illegal, and there is no ground to discuss this issue.

In addition, the plaintiff stated the conjunctive claim part of the original judgment as the objection to the petition of appeal, but there was no reason for appeal on it.

Therefore, among the original judgment, the part concerning the primary claim among the original judgment is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the original judgment (the judgment previously rendered by a party member regarding this case does not conflict with the judgment of this case since the judgment was not judged in relation to the aforementioned prior and subsequent disposition, so it does not conflict with the judgment of this case). The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)