In case where a person without authority cancels an administrative disposition that has become void by year and benefits of action

Where the head of a Gun who has no right to permit public waters under the Public Waters Management Act obtains permission to occupy and use the public waters as a matter of course, the permission is null and void, so there is no benefit to file a lawsuit to seek cancellation

Articles 4 and 17 of the Public Waters Management Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Nu1184 delivered on February 24, 1976 (Supreme Court Decision 11184 delivered on June 24, 197, Supreme Court Decision 24Nu54 delivered on June 24, 200, Decision No. 3(1)1583 delivered on June 26

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Hamyeong-gun

The lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant revoked the administrative disposition that the defendant revoked the permission for occupation and use of each public water surface on December 30, 1975 to the plaintiff 1 as of December 30, 1975, which was revoked as of March 17, 1976, as of March 17, 1976, for the area of 15,091 square meters (number 1 omitted), and the area of 6,367 square meters (number 2 omitted), and the area of 5,582 square meters as of March 17, 1976.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

First of all, it is argued that the plaintiffs received permission to occupy and use public waters such as the entry in the purport of the claim from the defendant under Article 4 of the Public Waters Management Act before deciding on the merits of the case of the plaintiffs. However, the persons who obtained permission to occupy and use public waters under Article 4 (1) of the Public Waters Management Act shall obtain permission from the management agency of public waters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to Article 3 of the Public Waters Management Act, the management agency of public waters under Article 4 of the Public Waters Management Act shall be the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of Busan Special Metropolitan City, or the Do governor. Therefore, the permission to occupy and use public waters under Article 4 of the Public Waters Management Act may only be deemed to have been delegated by the management agency under the same Act or the head of local land construction office or local management agency (the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the Mayor of Busan Special Metropolitan City, and the Do governor under Article 3 of the same Act). The defendant and the head of the same Gun shall not have any grounds for delegation of the permission to occupy and use.

Therefore, since the permission for occupation and use of public waters granted to the plaintiffs is deemed as permission for invalidation only by a person without authority, the plaintiffs who obtained such permission have no interest in filing a lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 76Nu1 delivered on February 24, 1976). Thus, the plaintiffs' lawsuit on this case is dismissed as it is not necessary to examine the merits, and it is so decided as per Disposition at the expense of the plaintiffs.

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge)