1. In cases of a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition, a copy of the lawsuit requiring the transfer of a commissioner;

2. Whether there exists any interest in seeking the revocation of an invalid administrative disposition.

1. With respect to a lawsuit seeking cancellation on the grounds of invalidation of an administrative disposition, the transfer of a source of lawsuit is not required due to its nature;

2. Since an invalid administrative disposition is null and void as it does not have any legal effect, without seeking the revocation of the term, there is no benefit to seek the revocation claim.

Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Law No. 213)

Supreme Court Decision 76Nu142 delivered on October 29, 1976 (Gong76Nu142 delivered on October 29, 1976) (Article 1 (291) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 1 (291) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 1 (2) 1139's house 243Nu44 delivered on May 29, 1984; 84Nu175 delivered on May 29, 1984 (Gong733 and 1208)

Plaintiff

Secretary-General of Gyeongnam-do;

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The attorney of the plaintiff shall revoke the administrative disposition that the defendant sold to the non-party 1 on March 22, 4290 for the short term to the non-party 1.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the real estate in the attached list is the land category in the public record, the land category in the public record, and the real estate in the attached list has been small and medium prior to 30 years prior to the tidal wave, and the plaintiff has been entering into a lease contract and post-management with the Director General of the State Farmland Management Bureau of Busan on April 14, 4285, and the contract has been continuously entered into with the Mayor of Busan on April 22, 4285 and has been continuously cultivated on April 30, 4287. However, since the land was cultivated by the plaintiff at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, since the land was cultivated by the plaintiff at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the Gun has been under the right to receive distribution under the same Act, and the ownership of farmland located in the Busan on the land from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and there is no authority of the defendant to the Mayor of Busan on April 30, 4287.

Although the defendant, on March 22, 4290, sold the farmland to the non-party 1 on which the plaintiff's land was located, the defendant did not have the authority to dispose of the farmland. Thus, the appeal should be revoked without being subject to the statutory period as to the lawsuit, etc., and even if it is not possible to do so, the non-party has no authority to do so under the command of the court, and the non-party has no notification to the plaintiff who is interested in the sale of the farmland, and there was no notification to the non-party 1 in order to obstruct the plaintiff's participation and prevent the withdrawal of the relief of the objection, the plaintiff's appeal No. 511, No. 511, No. 12, and No. 511, No. 511, No. 511, and no appeal No. 2, which had been presented to the non-party 1 to the non-party 2, and thus, the plaintiff is found to have been unlawful for the plaintiff's appeal to the non-party 12.

Defendant 1’s legal representative, as the main defense of safety, filed a petition against the Plaintiff on November 2, 4291, which is the short-term period of time against the Plaintiff’s administrative disposition, after the statutory period of time expires. The Plaintiff’s legal representative, as a person who does not have the right to the land that became the subject of administrative disposition, is unable to file a lawsuit to recover the infringed right since he did not have any infringement of the right, and thus, the rejection of the lawsuit is not possible. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, and the public notice at the time of the sale is identical to the Plaintiff’s claim as well as the public notice at the time of the sale, and the above fact is denied. In other words, the Plaintiff’s legal representative did not have any legal duty of selling the land within the Busan City City City Land Planning and Utilization, which is the first day after the expiration of the statutory period of time, and the Plaintiff’s legal representative did not have any legal duty of selling the land within the Busan City Land Planning and Utilization, which is the first day after the expiration of the statutory period of sale.

Since the defendant's assertion that the land was subject to an administrative disposition for the cancellation of the plaintiff's construction of the land and the defendant's assertion that the land was not subject to an administrative disposition for the cancellation of the construction of the land and the defendant's disposal of the land was not subject to an administrative disposition for the first time on the premise that the land was not subject to an administrative disposition for the cancellation of the construction of the land, and the defendant's assertion that the land was subject to an administrative disposition for the cancellation of the construction of the land was not subject to an administrative disposition for the first time after the construction of the land and for the first time after the construction of the land was not subject to an administrative disposition for the first time, the defendant's assertion that the land was not subject to an administrative disposition for the cancellation of the construction of the land and for the first time after the construction of the land was not subject to an administrative disposition for the first time after the construction of the land, and that the land was not subject to an administrative disposition for the first time after the construction of the land and for the second time after the construction of the land was transferred to the plaintiff for sale for 4 years.

Judges Kim Young-k (Presiding Judge)