A person who has the authority to cancel an administrative disposition which is void as a matter of course;

The authority to cancel an administrative disposition which is void automatically by a non-competent administrative agency shall belong to the agency which has issued the administrative disposition concerned, and the authority to cancel shall not belong to the administrative agency which has the legitimate authority to make the administrative disposition concerned.

Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

Jeonnam-do Governor

Yeongsan River Improvement Cooperatives

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Gu122 delivered on May 22, 1984

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju High Court.

The defendant assistant intervenor's ground of appeal is examined.

The judgment of the court below is reasonable. Since the defendant's right to the land of this case including the land of this case owned by an intervenor to the plaintiff on December 9, 1970 (at the time of the above land improvement association) is to maintain 6,404 square meters in total, the land of this case is to be reclaimed pursuant to the Farmland Creation Act (Act No. 1872, Jan. 16, 1967; Act No. 2767, Apr. 11, 1975; Act No. 2767), and the land of this case is to be authorized to develop the land of this case and to cancel all of the above permission and authorization of completion on Oct. 6, 1982. According to Article 2 and paragraph (3) of the Addenda of the Farmland Development Promotion Act, if the area of the land of this case is less than 1,000 square meters, the permission-granting authority to the land of this case is still null and void at the time of the enactment of the Farmland Development Promotion Act or the Act.

However, the authority of the competent administrative agency to cancel the administrative disposition for the invalidation of the administrative disposition is belonging to the administrative agency which issued the administrative disposition, and the right of cancellation is not attributed to the administrative agency which has the legitimate authority to make the administrative disposition.

Therefore, the court below held that the right to permit the reclamation of this case belongs to the head of Pyeongtaek-gun under the provisions of Article 2 (5) of the Farmland Creation Promotion Act at the time of the permission, and that the authorization of completion and its cancellation or the cancellation of the permission of reclamation under the provisions of Article 18 and Article 19 of the former Farmland Creation Promotion Act shall still be subject to the authority of the head of Pyeongtaek-Gun for the reason that the cancellation of the permission of reclamation and the disposition of the authorization of completion are an administrative disposition of invalidation as long as the land reclamation and the disposition of the cancellation of the authorization of completion are an administrative disposition of invalidation only by an institution without the authority of the plaintiff, just like the permission of reclamation and the disposition of the cancellation of the authorization of the authorization of completion are an administrative disposition of invalidation as long as the unauthorized agency without the authority of the plaintiff was determined to be an administrative disposition of invalidation, and that the defective administrative agency with the authority of the authority of the court which accepted the plaintiff is erroneous, or there is a confusion between the cancellation authority of the administrative disposition and the authority of revocation of the invalidation of the administrative disposition without authority.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju