In cases where the project owner who completed corrective measures pursuant to the suspension disposition of construction is allowed to resume construction after correcting the violation of the Building Act, whether there is a benefit to seek revocation of the suspension disposition of construction

If the owner of a building, after taking corrective measures in accordance with the permitted violation of the Building Act, completed corrective measures, and the head of a Gun confirms them, and allows the owner to resume the construction after the head of a Gun confirms them, even if the head of a Gun does not explicitly withdraw or cancel the above measures, the above suspension disposition as an anti-private effect caused by the above administrative disposition becomes null and void, so the owner of a building shall be deemed to have no benefit in filing a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the extinguished disposition.

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Kim Jin Kim

Audio Gun

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff on June 1, 1990 for the suspension of construction shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On March 15, 1990, the Plaintiff was permitted by the Defendant to construct two houses for multi-household-building (hereinafter “instant houses”) on the two and twenty-five lands above the Do governor-ri 356-22 and 25 Geum-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do. However, there is no dispute between the parties to the instant order to suspend the construction of the instant houses on June 1, 1990 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Therefore, although the Plaintiff did not construct the instant housing in violation of the above building permit or the Building Act, the Defendant issued the instant disposition without specifying the Plaintiff’s specific illegal matters. The instant disposition is alleged to be unlawful as it violates the administrative procedure and deviates from the scope of discretionary power, and thus, it is possible to ex officio consider whether there is interest in the instant lawsuit prior to the determination of the merits.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 5 without dispute in its establishment, the defendant did not explicitly indicate the plaintiff's specific unlawful matters and the conditions under which the plaintiff may resume the construction of the housing of this case while rendering the original disposition of this case. On Sep. 21, 1990, the defendant stated that the plaintiff violated Article 5 (1) of the Building Act by conducting the first floor mold work of this case at a higher height than that permitted by the plaintiff in relation to the disposition of this case, and issued a corrective order with the purport that the plaintiff should resume the construction of the housing of this case after taking corrective measures as permitted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff confirmed that the corrective measures were completed in accordance with the above corrective order and confirmed that the plaintiff allowed the resumption of the construction of the housing of this case after confirming the completion of corrective measures under the corrective order of this case. Thus, the defendant issued a corrective order in relation to the disposition of this case, and as long as the plaintiff permitted the resumption of the construction of the housing of this case, the disposition of this case does not have the effect of cancellation.

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Judge)