Requirements for administrative disposition to be void automatically and the criteria for judgment thereof;

In order for the administrative disposition to be called null and void as a matter of course, it is not sufficient to say that there is an illegal cause, that the defect is in violation of important laws and regulations, objectively apparent, and whether the defect is significant and obvious, it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law from a teleological perspective and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself.

Articles 38 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu419 Decided July 23, 1985

Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the Land Partition Adjustment Association in the Tae-Sung-gu in the war

The head of the Dong-dong in wartime

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu574 delivered on December 30, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order for an administrative disposition to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, that the defect is in violation of important laws and regulations, objective apparent, and in determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be considered as a purposeological and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu419, Jul. 23, 1985).

The plaintiff is a juristic person established with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation pursuant to Article 16 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act of October 6, 1978, and the whole area of the substitute exhibition district shall be the land rearrangement execution district, and if part of it was designated as a development recompense area, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been directly used for the business by the non-profit entrepreneur for the public interest, and the property tax, urban planning tax, and defense tax cannot be imposed on the land development recompense area.

The court below, based on macroficial evidence, determined that the plaintiff's purpose is to exchange, divide or combine land, change land category or form, change the form and quality of public facilities, or conduct projects concerning the installation and change of public facilities for the purpose of enhancing the utility of the land site as the land site for the large exhibition Dong-dong, Oridong, Hongdong, Taeddong, Taeddong, Taeddong, Taeddong-gun, Taeddong-gun, Taeddong-ri as the land within the project area, and for the improvement of the public facilities, and 260,018 square meters in total area of the land was designated as a road, park, and the road site 234,895 square meters and park site 21,818 meters among them were designated as public land for the installation of public facilities, and that the above land secured by the court below can not be used for other purposes, such as the sale price for the above land readjustment project, etc., and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's economic utility can be directly determined and applied to the plaintiff's association's members in violation of the law.

2. The instant case is not subject to the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Act, the limitation of the filing period, etc., as long as the litigation seeking the confirmation of the invalidity of an administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the invalidity of the administrative disposition, and as such, the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Act, the limitation of the filing period, etc. are not applicable. Therefore, the instant case is without merit, even if the Plaintiff’s petition for objection to the disposition imposing property tax

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)