Whether an abstract statute can be an object of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission (negative)

Administrative litigation is a matter of legal stability by resolving legal disputes over a specific case by law. Therefore, it is a dispute over a specific right and duty, and it is not a direct change in the specific right and duty of the people in itself, and it is not a matter of legal stability.

Articles 2 and 36 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu656 delivered on March 24, 1987 (Gong1987,750), 91Nu1738 delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong1991,2452), 91Nu12639 delivered on March 10, 192 (Gong192,1316)

Plaintiff

Attorney Cho Yong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu10086 delivered on October 1, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below asserted that the plaintiff, as the chairperson of the Ansan-dong District Dam Damage Countermeasure Committee, has suffered a lot of losses due to the rapid and abnormal occurrence of the storm, etc., and pursuant to Article 41 of the Specific Multipurpose Dam Act, the state is obliged to compensate for losses due to the construction of a multipurpose dam under Article 42 of the Specific Multipurpose Dam Act and Article 42 of the same Act provides for necessary matters, such as the procedure for compensation for losses and the method thereof, etc., as prescribed by Presidential Decree, but the defendant's failure to enact it constitutes an omission of administrative legislation, and thus, the defendant's failure to establish it constitutes an illegality of omission. However, since administrative litigation is a matter of legal stability by resolving legal disputes over specific cases by law, it can be subject to the confirmation of illegality of omission is a dispute over specific rights and obligations, and it does not directly change the specific rights and obligations of the citizens, and thus,

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a specific multi-purpose dam such as theory of lawsuit, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for protection of rights, or in violation of the Constitution

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)