[1] Where a judgment revoking an administrative disposition becomes final and conclusive, whether a new administrative disposition made by supplementing the grounds for illegality indicated in such judgment conflicts with the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment (negative)

[2] Whether the re-disposition under Article 30 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act is applicable to a case where the law was revised and implemented after the final and conclusive decision of the rejection disposition was rendered and the new ground was made (affirmative)

[3] In a case where the relevant Act and subordinate statutes were amended after the judgment of revocation of the disposition of revocation of the building disapproval becomes final and conclusive, whether the head of the relevant local government made a disposition of rejection again for the reasons stipulated in the new Act and subordinate statutes constitutes a case where the previous disposition was made in accordance with the purport of final and conclusive judgment under

[1] According to the provisions of Article 30 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, when a judgment revoking a rejection disposition by an administrative agency becomes final and conclusive, the administrative agency that issued the disposition is obligated to re-disposition the previous application in accordance with the purport of the judgment. However, the administrative agency that was the party to the final and conclusive judgment can supplement the grounds for illegality stated in the

[2] The legality of an administrative disposition is determined on the basis of the relevant law and fact at the time when the administrative disposition was taken. Thus, when the law was amended and implemented after the disposition of refusal, the amended law and the guidelines for permission can be deemed as a new ground, and such a disposition also constitutes a new disposition under Article 30(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

[3] In a case where the local government's new rejection disposition is made for the reason that the new rejection disposition was made by the head of the local government for the purpose of running the lodging business in a certain area after the decision of revocation of the building disapproval disposition becomes final and conclusive, it constitutes a case where the head of the local government's organization made a new rejection disposition in accordance with the purport of the final and conclusive judgment under Article 30 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

[1] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and 30 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 30 (2) and 34 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5242 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 2040) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10275 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 289) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu13057 delivered on February 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 780) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 80Nu412 delivered on December 8, 1981 (Gong1982, 144) (Gong1989, 703) Supreme Court Order 88Nu1257 delivered on March 28, 197 (Gong1989, 703) and Supreme Court Order 96Du7970 delivered on February 4, 1997 (Gong1979).

Re-appellant

Heading Gun

Gwangju High Court Order 97Nu6 dated March 24, 1997

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to Article 30 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, when a judgment revoking a rejection disposition by an administrative agency becomes final and conclusive, an administrative agency that has taken the disposition is obligated to take a new measure against the previous application in accordance with the purport of the judgment. However, in this case, an administrative agency that is a party to the final and conclusive judgment may take a new measure by supplementing the grounds for illegality stated in the final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu13057, Feb. 11, 1997). The legality of an administrative disposition is determined based on the relevant statutes and facts at the time when the administrative disposition was taken, and where the statutes were amended and implemented after the disposition of rejection, the administrative agency may take a rejection disposition against the previous application for a new reason, and such a disposition also constitutes a second disposition provided for in the above provisions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Du70, Feb. 4, 1997; 8Nu1257, Mar. 28, 1981).

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the applicant filed an application for construction permit with the respondent around September 14, 1995 to construct a building for accommodation facilities on the land of this case, quasi-agricultural and forest area, but the respondent rejected such application on the ground that construction of accommodation facilities on the land of this case damages the overall landscape, view and residents' sentiments. The applicant filed a lawsuit against the respondent seeking revocation of the construction permit under the Gwangju High Court Ordinance 95Nu3601 on May 16, 1996. Since the above non-permission ground is no more than any construction restriction ground stipulated in the related laws and regulations such as the Building Act, the Act on the Utilization and Management of National Territory, and the Urban Planning Act, which were enforced at the time, and the above non-permission application for construction permit was no more than 10 days after the above non-permission of the above construction permit became final and conclusive on June 13, 19, and the above ruling was no more than 19 days after the amendment of the Ordinance on the Construction permit of this case.

The Supreme Court Order 96Du70 dated February 4, 1997 and Decision 90Nu3560 Decided December 11, 1990 cited in the grounds for reappeal can not render a new rejection disposition as to the previous application on the ground that the previous application may have been asserted effective before the closing of argument at the court of fact-finding. The purport of this case is that the amended law after the rejection disposition cannot make a new rejection disposition in accordance with the amended law.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)