Change of the date of public sale of property devolvingd and administrative litigation

The decision of the date of the public auction for the vested property or the change of the decision are subject to the discretion of the competent administrative agency, so it shall not be the subject of litigation even if the change of the date of the public auction has a reflective impact on the interests of the persons concerned due to the change of the date of the public auction.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Masung Technology University Kim Yong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

The Director of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Government Administration Kim Chang-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

The President of the Masung Private Teaching Institute and the President of the Masung Private Teaching Institute

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1, a representative of the Sungsung Middle School Embrics Association, who is a defendant-appellant, and the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 54Do83 delivered on June 11, 1955

The main body is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by attending the plaintiff's attorney-at-law is that the original judgment cannot be seen as an administrative disposition which has a final effect on the plaintiff's rights and obligations. This disposition is unlawful because it cannot be an object of administrative litigation. It is obvious by year or record that this disposition causes serious complaint to the plaintiff's rights and obligations, and the plaintiff continues to pay 0 million won to the government authorities for the purpose of purchase of this case, and even if the sales contract is concluded with the first payment of the deposit money, it cannot be seen as an illegal disposition against the plaintiff's duty to maintain the buyer's rights and obligations under the law because it cannot be seen as an unlawful disposition for the purpose of protecting the rights and obligations of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff cannot be seen as an illegal disposition for the purpose of removing the plaintiff's property losses due to an omission of administrative disposition for a long time, which is an unlawful disposition for the purpose of protecting the rights and obligations of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be seen as an illegal disposition for the purpose of removing the plaintiff's property losses due to an omission of administrative disposition for a long time.

The decision of the court below is a matter of so-called free discretion that the decision of the court below is made independently due to the circumstances such as the situation of administrative affairs of the administrative agency under the jurisdiction of the administrative agency and other circumstances. Thus, it is reasonable to hold that the decision of the court below is not subject to administrative action against the interests of the related parties due to the alteration of the administrative agency's right or any other special circumstances unless there is a significant unfair abuse of rights or any other special circumstances. Therefore, it is obvious that the decision of the court below is unreasonable (the assertion and proof as to the payment of bid bond to the government agency of several million won can not be found in the records) since it is obvious that the decision of the court below is unreasonable, and it is identical with the opinion of the court below that the decision of the court below cannot be subject to litigation because it violated the plaintiff's right. Accordingly, the decision of the court below is just and justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition of Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to civil litigation costs.

Justices Kim Byung-o (Presiding Justice)