Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation or nullification of an administrative disposition, the effective period of which has been fixed, after the expiration of such period (negative)

In a case where the effective period of an administrative disposition is fixed, the effect of such administrative disposition shall be invalidated upon the lapse of such period, and there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of the cancellation or invalidity of such disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon due to the remainder of such disposition after the expiration of such period.

Articles 12 and 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu433 decided Nov. 24, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

In a case where the effective period of an administrative disposition is fixed, the effect of such administrative disposition shall be invalidated upon the lapse of such period, and thus, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation or nullity confirmation of such disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon due to the remaining appearance after the expiration of such period.

In the same view, the judgment of the court below that the disposition of this case's suspension of driver's license of this case for which the plaintiff seeks revocation has already been completed, and that of this case's refusal to grant driver's license of this case is not premised on the disposition of suspension of driver's license of this case, and there is no circumstance to deem that any legal interest has been infringed due to remaining appearance of the disposition, and thus, the judgment of the court below that the lawsuit of nullification

We cannot accept the conclusion of the judgment of the court below in its independent opinion.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff driven a car at around 13:30 on November 13, 1985 and caused a 50-meter 172-lane to the front side of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul East-gu, Seoul to the front side of the Gun guard at a speed of about 50 km from the front side of the parallel-dong to the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the road, which turned the front side of the road without permission from the left side of the front side of the road at two meters from the front side of the front side of the road and taken an urgent action, but it did not reach the upper side of the above vehicle, and rejected the evidence contrary thereto.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below shall be justified and it shall not be deemed that there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

After all, we cannot accept the argument because it is nothing more than pointing out evidence preparation and fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive authority of the court below.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)