Whether a disposition to cancel the permission for the use of miscellaneous land is subject to administrative litigation

In cases where an administrative agency does not have a position as a holder of public power, but does a juristic act with a general individual in relation to a general property law, it is an issue that it should be regulated solely as a judicial effect, and this cannot be said to be an administrative disposition that brings about the effects of public law. Therefore, permission for use or disposition of cancellation of a miscellaneous land is not subject to administrative litigation.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on October 5, 200

Career Help Corporation

E-Government Market

The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's revocation of the permission for the use of real estate listed in the attached Form No. 1270-76 of February 10, 1968 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On July 1, 1966, the defendant granted permission to construct tourist facilities on the miscellaneous land in the annexed list, owned by the plaintiff on July 1, 1966, but revoked the permission for use of the land against the plaintiff on February 10, 1968 on the ground that he did not fulfill the conditions of permission that set aside a sum of KRW 20 million with the facility fund. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, the plaintiff submitted to the defendant the guarantee of the above bank's deposit to the defendant because the contract with the non-party Korean Commercial Bank Chungcheong Branch and the installment savings of KRW 20 million, the plaintiff met the conditions of permission. Thus, the revocation of the case is alleged to be unlawful. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case first is examined as to whether the disposition of this case constitutes an administrative disposition for which revocation can be sought by administrative litigation.

It is clear that the permission to use the miscellaneous land in this case has the nature of the loan contract under the provisions of the Local Finance Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the municipal ordinance of the defendant city, and the cancellation act of this case means lending or cancellation of the above land is not the status of the public authority as the owner of the public authority, but is not the administrative agency or its affiliated agency, and therefore, it cannot be said that the administrative agency or its affiliated agency, which is the subject of administrative litigation, is not the administrative disposition. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is illegal because it is not an administrative disposition which does not meet the requirements of administrative litigation.

Therefore, this lawsuit shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Judge)