[1] The meaning of an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation

[2] Whether the act of requesting a measure of cutting electricity and telephone conversations against an illegal building constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal (negative)

[1] The term "administrative disposition", which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to an act of an administrative agency under public law, which is directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or giving rise to other legal effects with respect to a specific matter, and an act, etc., which does not cause a direct legal change in the legal status of the other party or other persons concerned, such as acts within the administrative authority, referral, solicitation, and de facto notification, etc.

[2] In light of the provisions of Article 69(2) and (3) of the Building Act, the act of an administrative agency issuing a corrective order to a building in violation of an Act and requesting the supplier of electricity and telephone to not supply electricity and telephone to the illegal building because the violator failed to comply with it is merely an act of a recommended nature, and it does not directly change the legal status of the supplier of electricity and telephone or a specific person, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation.

[1] Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 69 of the Building Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu9099 delivered on November 21, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 88) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu6331 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3192) Supreme Court Order 94Du33 delivered on September 10, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2870) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu10832 delivered on July 28, 1995

Plaintiff

Ulsan City Mayor (the head of Ulsan Gun before correction)

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu3974 delivered on November 17, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

Judgment ex officio is made.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on June 11, 1993, the court below acknowledged that the defendant applied for the suspension of electricity and telephone communications on the building of this case and notified the plaintiff of this fact on the ground that the multi-household house of this case violated neighboring land without permission from the defendant, changed the purpose of the use of the unauthorized building that the plaintiff should remove, and the multi-household house of this case was used in advance prior to the completion inspection. The plaintiff applied for the suspension of electricity and telephone communications on the building of this case and notified the plaintiff of this fact. On June 11, 1993, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the defendant applied for the revocation of the sanctions that cut down electricity supply and telephone communications with regard to the above multi-household house of this case as corrective order and restoration measures under the Building Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

However, an administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to an act in the public law of an administrative agency, which is directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or giving rise to other legal effects on a specific matter. An act inside the administrative authority, such as actions, intermediation, solicitation, de facto notification, etc., which does not cause a direct legal change in the legal status of the other party or other related persons, is not an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation. In light of the provisions of Article 69(2) and (3) of the Building Act, the defendant issued a corrective order for a building in violation of the law and requested the supplier of electricity and telephone to supply electricity and telephone for the failure of the plaintiff who was the offender, which did not comply with the order and request the supplier of electricity and telephone to supply electricity and telephone for the supply of the building in violation of the law, is merely an act of recommending the legal status of an electricity and telephone supplier or a specific person, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8299.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant's measures to request the supplier of electricity and telephone to suspend the supply of electricity and telephone communications for the above multi-household houses shall be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is deemed sufficient to be directly tried by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)