Whether a lawsuit to revoke a warrant for vicarious administrative execution is subject to administrative litigation

In the event that an obligor fails to perform his obligation by the designated deadline after being subject to the dismissal of Article 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, the administrative agency concerned notifies the obligor of the time of vicarious execution as a warrant for vicarious execution, the name of the person in charge of execution and the estimated amount of expenses required for vicarious execution, which is merely a part of the procedure for vicarious execution, which does not have any legal effect, nor imposes any new obligation on the obligor. Thus, the warrant for vicarious execution in this case cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to the administrative litigation.

Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Plaintiff

Masan Gun

All lawsuits shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1) Main intent of the claim

The administrative vicarious execution warrant for two graves installed within 8-1 forest land, Yansan-gun, Yansan-gun, Yansan-gun, one of the 1438.7-470 of the health care of the defendant against the plaintiff on June 12, 1974, shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

(2) Claim of the preliminary claim

The defendant's dismissal against the plaintiff as of February 28, 1974 as of 1438.7-160, and the dismissal against the second half of the above grave as of March 11, 1974 as of 1438.7-244, is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

In order of the plaintiff's request, the cancellation of the vicarious execution warrant is first considered.

The fact that the Plaintiff installed two graves of the Plaintiff’s deceased father and the deceased father in the 88-1 forest area in the Yansan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and the fact that the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a writ of vicarious execution, such as the purport of the claim for the second period of the said grave, to the Plaintiff on June 12, 1974, does not conflict between the parties.

However, the plaintiff's attorney seeking revocation of a warrant of vicarious execution because it is an illegal administrative disposition without taking a premise for vicarious execution. Thus, according to the records of evidence Nos. 1 through 7 of this Act without dispute over the establishment, the defendant violated the provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the Burial and Graveyard Act and ordered the plaintiff to open a new warrant of vicarious execution by not later than 1438.7-107 of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act with respect to the two non-authorized grave installed in the previous part of a forest, which is not a public cemetery of justice or private cemetery, prior to the implementation of the new warrant of vicarious execution, it does not require the plaintiff to open a new warrant of vicarious execution by not more than 2 times on March 11, 1438.7-191 of the same year, and it does not require the plaintiff to open a new warrant of vicarious execution by not more than 3 times until 10 April 10 of the same year. In the event that the defendant did not issue a new warrant of vicarious execution to the plaintiff within the same period of vicarious execution.

Therefore, this case's lawsuit seeking revocation is unlawful because the warrant for vicarious execution is illegal.

Then, in light of the whole purport of the plaintiff's argument, as to the plaintiff's lawsuit for revocation of the above order of succession, the defendant filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above order of succession on June 19, 1974 on the ground that the plaintiff's disposition of succession is not harmful to public health and sanitation, on the ground that the plaintiff neglected the above order of succession, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to the Gyeongnam-do governor, the directly superior administrative agency of the disposition agency of the disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of this case, and there is a concern that serious damage would occur if the above plaintiff's judgment of

However, even in cases of filing a lawsuit in accordance with the latter part of Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, only a legitimate lawsuit shall be filed, and according to the facts recognized earlier, the plaintiff is clear that the lawsuit was filed after the lapse of three months from the date of the administrative disposition, which is the period of filing the lawsuit under Article 3 (1) of the original Act, which is the period of filing the lawsuit under Article 3 (1) of the original Act, and therefore, it shall be deemed illegal that the lawsuit in this case is filed with the lapse of the period of filing the lawsuit. Therefore, it shall not be avoided that

Therefore, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case cannot be corrected or corrected as it is a certain or unlawful lawsuit, the necessity to review the case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judge Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)