beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
On April 4, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to perform the new construction work of Ulsan-gu C ground D's ground D's 115,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as the "instant agreement") and completed the construction work. According to the agreement, even though the Defendant was liable to pay value-added tax on the instant construction work, the Plaintiff was liable to pay value-added tax by the disposition imposing national tax, so the Defendant is liable to pay it to the Plaintiff.
Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides, as a type of administrative litigation, an appeal suit, a party suit, a civil suit, and an agency suit. Article 4 provides only a revocation suit, invalidation suit, etc., and a litigation seeking performance of the duty to act against an administrative agency pursuant to the current Administrative Litigation Act, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff is an administrative agency that made a disposition against the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant lawsuit seeking performance of the duty to act against the Defendant, like the instant lawsuit, is unlawful.
In addition, although the plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit of this case constitutes a party lawsuit which is a kind of the administrative litigation, the party lawsuit is a lawsuit as to the legal relationship that is based on the disposition, etc. of the administrative agency, and as to the legal relationship under the public law, one party to the legal relationship is the defendant. The agreement of this case is a contract between the private parties, but it cannot be viewed as a legal relationship under the public law. Thus, the lawsuit of this case
On the other hand, even if the plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit claiming damages due to illegal acts, etc. against the defendant, according to the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is liable for damages based on the same contents to the defendant