Whether or not there is a benefit in seeking the revocation of a disposition of building permission on a completed temporary building before the closing of pleadings in the original trial in seeking the exclusion of infringement of traffic rights, such as opening of passages

If Gap completed a temporary building in accordance with the permitted conditions with the permission of a temporary building on the land owned by him/her which is publicly notified as a prospective road site under urban planning and before the conclusion of the original trial, it is used as the only passage through which a de facto road is already constructed and entered into a dormitory for management Eul. As a result, even if the above construction permission disposition is an illegal disposition that infringes on Eul's right to passage over surrounding land, even if Eul's cancellation of the above construction permission disposition, it has already been possible to block Eul's construction of the above temporary building upon Eul's cancellation of the above construction permission disposition, and as a civil lawsuit, it is not necessarily necessary to order Eul's cancellation of the above construction permission disposition, and therefore Eul's cancellation of the above construction permission disposition is not a legal interest to seek the cancellation of the above

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

The Red Interest Scholarship Association, a foundation

Gwangju Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 85Gu72 delivered on March 27, 1986

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.

All litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

ex officio scamba,

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below has duly confirmed the completion of a temporary building in accordance with the contents of the permission on the land owned by the non-party on the land owned by the non-party, which was publicly announced as a road site in the urban planning after obtaining the building permit of this case from the defendant on April 9, 1985.

Therefore, the land owned by the Nonparty, such as the Plaintiff’s Director, is already used as the only passage from the road that has already been constructed and has been used as the part of entering into the lawsuit of Plaintiff’s management, and the instant temporary building permission disposition as a result, even if the Plaintiff violated the Plaintiff’s right to passage over surrounding land as to the land indicated in the judgment, the phase in which the Plaintiff could be prevented from constructing the said temporary building upon the cancellation of the instant construction permission disposition. Moreover, as a civil lawsuit against the said Nonparty, the judgment ordering the cancellation of the instant temporary building building permission disposition is not necessarily necessary, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be said to have a legal interest in filing a lawsuit against the revocation of the instant temporary building building permission disposition.

Nevertheless, it is unlawful for the court below to misunderstanding that the plaintiff has legal interest in seeking the revocation of the temporary building building permit disposition of this case with excessive points, and to make a trial and determination on the merits of this case, so it is unlawful to reverse the judgment of the court below ex officio and dismiss the lawsuit of this case, and the total litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)