The validity of a new administrative disposition in conflict with the above final and conclusive judgment, which orders the cancellation of administrative disposition, before the closure of arguments in fact-finding proceedings.

In a case where a judgment ordering cancellation of an administrative disposition becomes final and conclusive in an administrative litigation, the administrative agency cannot make a new disposition that is inconsistent with the final and conclusive judgment on the ground that the grounds for the transfer of closure of arguments in the fact-finding court (the same shall apply even if the grounds were not asserted in the previous lawsuit) and if such a disposition was made, it shall be deemed

Article 13 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Nu39 delivered on January 21, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 61Da17765 delivered on July 8, 1980)

Yoon Dong-dong et al.

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (78Gahap1823) in the first instance trial

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The Defendant confirms that the real estate recorded in the attached list No. 1 is owned by the Plaintiff Hadong, that the real estate recorded in the attached list No. 2 is owned by the same rank, that it is owned by the same rank, that the real estate recorded in the attached list No. 3 is owned by the same rank, that it is owned by the same rank, and that the real estate recorded in the attached list No. 4 is owned by the same rank, and that it is owned by the same rank.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. According to each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-5 (each certified copy of the register) without dispute over each establishment, real estate recorded in the separate list No. 1-5 (for real estate recorded in the separate list No. 3, real estate in the same list No. 2), it can be recognized that the above plaintiffs' ownership (for real estate recorded in the separate list No. 3, the above plaintiffs and the non-party co-ownership of 1/3 shares) are owned by the plaintiffs, under the same name of le-dong with respect to real estate recorded in the same list No. 3, under the same list No. 3, under the same name of le-dong with respect to real estate recorded in the same list No. 4, and there are no counter-proofs for real estate registered in the same list No. 5.

2. The defendant's ruling that the above disposal of real estate was cancelled on June 30, 195. The defendant's disposal of non-party 1 to the above disposal of non-party 1 to the above disposal of non-party 6's remaining real estate was cancelled on the ground that the above disposal of the non-party 1 to the above disposal of the non-party 6's remaining real estate was cancelled on the ground that the non-party 1 to the above disposal of the non-party 9's new sale of the non-party 1 to the above disposal of the non-party 9's new sale of the non-party 1 to the above disposal of the non-party 6's new sale of the non-party 9's new sale of the non-party 1 to the above disposal of the non-party 9's new sale of the non-party 1 to the above disposal of the non-party 9's new sale of the non-party 1 to the above disposal of the non-party 2's new sale of the non-party 96's new sale.

3. On December 6, 1978, 1978, after the judgment revoking the above sale disposition became final and conclusive, the defendant purchased 230,000 square meters of the above recognition, including this case's real estate, immediately cancelled the sale contract on June 30, 1959 for the reasons that the non-party company purchased the above recognition 230,000 square meters of the above recognition, and failed to pay the sale balance. Therefore, the above sale contract became retroactively null and void, and the above registration in the plaintiffs' name is also an invalid registration. Thus, the non-party company's failure to pay the sale balance in all is identical to the above facts that the non-party company did not pay the above 1-5 and the above 2-1-6-1 of the evidence No. 9 without any dispute over the establishment of the above administrative litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court's ruling No. 9600, Jul. 4, 1959).

4. Therefore, since the real estate in this case is owned by or jointly owned by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' claim for this case seeking confirmation of the ownership of the plaintiffs against the defendant who asserted that it is owned by the plaintiffs shall be accepted, with merit, and the judgment of the court below is just and without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sang-won (Presiding Judge) Lee Jong-young