(a) Whether the military delegation rules re-entrusted to the head of the Myeon the authority to permit the occupation and use of rivers delegated by the Governor to the head of the Do government can serve as the grounds for delegation

(b) Where an application for permission to occupy and use a river has been filed with the unauthorized Myeon head, but the Myeon head makes a disposition contrary to the purpose of rejection, whether there is legal interest in dispute due to administrative

A. Administrative authority may not be delegated or re-entrusted to subordinate administrative agencies without any basis under laws and regulations, and Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority does not apply mutatis mutandis to the affairs of a local government, and there is no ground law that allows the Do Governor to re-entrust the authority to permit the occupation and use of rivers delegated by the head of the Do to the head of the Myeon. In addition, even if there are grounds for re-delegation, it is only possible to re-endorse the authority to permit the occupation and use of rivers delegated by the Do Governor by the head of the Gun to the head of the Myeon, and the regulations enacted by the Gun only can be re

B. Even if an application for permission to occupy and use a non-authorized Myeon was submitted to the unauthorized Myeon head, the application is not meaningful, and even if the Myeon head returned the application to the purport that the permission was rejected, it cannot be said that there is any infringement of rights and interests as to the Plaintiff. Since there is room for the Plaintiff to obtain the permission again by the head of the competent Gun, there is no legal interest in dispute as to

(a)Article 10 of the River Act, Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act, Article 9 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 95 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

The number of Maz.

Papju-gun Sypology

1. Rejection of the instant lawsuit

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on August 31, 1991 rejecting the application for permission to occupy and use the river site shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of a return disposition;

The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 2-1 through 6, evidence Nos. 9 through 11, and evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and evidence Nos. 1 through 10.

A. The plaintiff applied mutatis mutandis for the occupation and use permit against the defendant over several occasions after April 13, 1989, on the ground that the plaintiff occupied and used a river site of 47,700 square meters (hereinafter "the river site of this case") from June 16, 1981 to December 31, 198, under the ground that he occupied and used a river site of 17,700 square meters (hereinafter "the river site of this case") of Gyeonggi-do, which belongs to the "Yju-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-si, which started from the Han River basin-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-si

B. On May 13, 1989, August 2, 1990, September 7, 1990, June 11, 1991, and July 19, 199, the defendant first requested to supplement the letter of consent of Lee Jong-seok, an adjacent interested party, and rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with it. On August 2, 1990, the Governor of Gyeonggi-do, who is the ruling authority in the administrative appeal for the disposition of return on August 2, 1990, revoked the disposition of return on the ground that it cannot become an interested party, and then confirmed the owner of the trees planted on the river site of this case, and requested to submit the results of the survey on the current status of access roads, and rejected the application again.

C. Accordingly, on August 20, 191, the Plaintiff returned the same application again, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the return of the application again on August 31, 1991 on the ground that the supplementary documents previously demanded were not submitted (hereinafter “instant return disposition”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate on the ground that the above disposition grounds and the land of this case is not allowed to enter the river site of this case unless the land of this case, which is the owner of the land adjacent to the river site of this case, passes through the land of this case. The plaintiff actually cultivated the land of this case with the permission to occupy and use the river site of this case with the permission to occupy and use the adjacent land of this case, and the plaintiff was granted the permission to occupy and use the river site of this case, while the land of this case was sold to Lee Jong-chul to Lee Jong-ok, it transferred the annual right to occupy and use the river site of this case to Lee Jong-ok. Since the trees of this case are planted on the river site of this case and the trees of this case are trees owned by Lee Jong-seok and thus

B. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the river site of this case was illegal because the plaintiff developed and cultivated the land in the name of the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff should give priority to granting permission to occupy and use the land to the plaintiff, who is the right holder, despite the fact that he cannot become an interested party, and the application was rejected.

3. Whether the litigation of this case is appropriate

A. Person holding permission to occupy the river site of this case

Before determining the allegations by the parties, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant has the authority to permit the occupation and use of the land of applying mutatis mutandis rivers, such as the issue in this case, in order to examine the legality of the lawsuit in this case.

(b) Relevant statutes;

According to the provisions of Article 10 of the River Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the proviso of Article 11 of the River Act, management agencies of rivers to which the provisions of this case apply mutatis mutandis are competent Do Governors. According to Article 95 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act, the heads of local governments may delegate part of their authority to their competent local governments under the conditions as prescribed by municipal ordinances. According to Article 95 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, the heads of local governments may delegate part of their authority to their subsidiary organs, affiliated administrative agencies, and subordinate administrative agencies, as prescribed by municipal ordinances.

(c) Fact of recognition;

According to the Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs and the Rules on the Delegation of the Affairs of the Pakistan-gun, Gyeonggi-do delegated the authority to occupy and use land to the head of Si/Gun pursuant to the Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs (Ordinance No. 497 of May 16, 1972) (Article 95 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act) and the Rules on the Delegation of Affairs of the Pakistan-gun to the head of Si/Gun (Article 95 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act).

D. Determination as to the defendant's competence

In principle, administrative dispositions, such as permission for occupation and use, such as this case, shall be conducted by the person with authority in accordance with the laws and regulations, and only in cases where there are grounds for laws and regulations, the authority given may be delegated, re-entrusted to subordinate administrative agencies, etc., and in cases where there are no grounds for such laws and regulations, the authority given by the administrative agencies to subordinate agencies, etc. shall not be delegated, re-entrusted without permission

In addition, Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority provides the procedures for the re-election of the affairs of the State administrative agency pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act, and there is no legal ground that Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the affairs of the local government. Therefore, there is no other ground law that can be re-delegation of the affairs of this case. In addition, the head of the local government shall not delegate the affairs of the head of the local government to the subordinate administrative agency, not the "Ordinance" but the "Rules on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority", so the "Rules on Delegation of Affairs of the State Agency" of the Pakistan can not be delegated to the subordinate administrative agency. Therefore, the "Rules on Delegation of Affairs of the State Agency" of the State Agency Agency may be the basis for internal delegation, and there is no effect on the delegation of authority

E. Benefits of the lawsuit of this case

As seen above, if the defendant does not have the authority to permit the occupation and use of the river site of this case submitted to Eup/Myeon for the reason that there is no legal ground for re-delegation of the authority to permit the occupation and use of the river site of this case, the plaintiff's application for the occupation and use of the river site of this case submitted to the defendant does not have any meaning as the application. Even if the defendant rejected the application in the manner that the defendant rejected the permission, it cannot be said that there is any infringement of any right or legal interest to the plaintiff. The plaintiff may again request the occupation and use of the river site of this case to the head of dispatched Gun who has the authority, to obtain the permission, or

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Young (Presiding Judge)