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

[2] Whether an administrative agency's acceptance of a legitimate report on a matter considered to have obtained a building permit by filing a report under Article 9 (1) of the former Building Act constitutes an administrative disposition (negative)

[1] An administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to an act of an administrative agency’s public law, which is an act directly related to the duty of rights of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations with respect to a specific matter, or causing other legal effects, and an act that does not directly change legal status of the other party or other interested persons, is not an administrative disposition that is the object

[2] In a case where a building permit is deemed to have been granted by filing a report under Article 9(1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5230 of Dec. 30, 1996), construction can be conducted without any need to take specific measures, such as acceptance of a report by an administrative agency only if the person who intends to build the building has filed a report meeting lawful requirements. Thus, the administrative agency’s acceptance of the report cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that causes a direct change in the specific rights of the neighboring land owner or residents as well as the building owner.

[1] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition], 2, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 9 (1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5230 of Dec. 30, 1996), Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition], 2, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu962 delivered on March 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1636) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu631 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3192), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu433 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1418), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6202 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2123), Supreme Court Decision 98Du15863 delivered on June 25, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1523), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu97989 delivered on August 29, 197 (Gong97989 decided August 29, 299)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Seongbukbuk 2 Dong (Attorney Hong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Intervenor joining the Intervenor

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu20573 delivered on October 22, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on July 1, 1996, the court below reported to the defendant on July 1, 1996 the extension of the building volume of 641 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case") to the defendant on the ground of Seongbuk-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) Taedae, 641 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case"), and the defendant repaired the building on October 4, 1996. The defendant extended the building volume on the land in this case without the right to exclusively and exclusively use and profit from the land in this case. The extension of the building volume on the land in this case violates the rights of the plaintiff including the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant's acceptance of the extension report by the plaintiff was unlawful, and thus, accepted the plaintiff's claim in this case seeking the revocation of the repair disposition

However, an administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to an act of an administrative agency's public law and directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations under the laws and regulations on a specific matter or causing other legal effects, and an act that does not directly cause legal changes in the legal status of the other party or other related persons does not constitute an administrative disposition that is the object of an appeal litigation, and where it is deemed that a building permit has been granted upon reporting under Article 9 (1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5230 of Dec. 30, 196; hereinafter the same shall apply), construction can be conducted without a need to take particular measures, such as acceptance by the administrative agency if the person who wants to construct the building has filed a report meeting legitimate requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 962, Mar. 14, 195). The extension of the above garage is an administrative disposition that directly causes changes in the owner's rights, regardless of whether the building owner reported under Article 9 (1).

Therefore, although the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case should be dismissed as it is unlawful, the court below judged that the defendant's act of receiving a report of extension was an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to administrative disposition, which affected the conclusion of judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor, the lower judgment is reversed, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)