Article 8 of the former Administrative Vicarious Execution Act (amended by Act No. 3755 of Dec. 15, 1984)

The purpose of Article 8 of the former Administrative Vicarious Execution Act (amended by Act No. 3755 of Dec. 15, 1984) is to file a lawsuit, but it does not interfere with the filing of a lawsuit, such as civil or administrative action, and it does not mean that the disposition of an administrative vicarious execution guidance may directly file an administrative lawsuit without following the filing of a lawsuit.

Articles 7 and 8 of the former Administrative Vicarious Execution Act (amended by Act No. 3755 of Dec. 15, 1984); Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu293 delivered on July 27, 1982

Plaintiff

Head of a Si/Gun

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu217 delivered on November 20, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the so-called appeal litigation seeking the cancellation of an illegal administrative act by an administrative agency, the effect of self-control and supervision of the administrative authority and, in order to enhance the efficiency of protection of rights, in the event that there is a system for raising an objection, filing a request for review of the administrative authority, filing an objection, or filing an objection, such procedure is essential prior to filing a lawsuit.

A person who is dissatisfied with the vicarious execution under Article 7 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act (amended by Act No. 35, Dec. 15, 1984) provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the vicarious execution may bring an action against the administrative agency in question or the superior administrative agency in question. Thus, the plaintiff who was subject to the disposition of vicarious execution guidance on March 7, 1984 when this Act was in force shall have followed the original procedure in filing the suit in question.

In the debate, Article 7 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the vicarious execution may bring an action against the relevant administrative agency or the equivalent administrative agency. However, according to Article 8 of the same Act, the provisions of the preceding Article do not interfere with the right to release from the court, so that the disposition of administrative vicarious execution can immediately bring an administrative lawsuit without going through the original procedure, but the disposition of administrative vicarious execution is required to bring an action, but the disposition of Article 8 of the same Act does not interfere with the filing of a lawsuit, such as civil or administrative action, and it does not interfere with the filing of a lawsuit, and therefore, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which provides the filing of a lawsuit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the lawsuit of this case, which was brought against the defendant's ruling on the disposition of vicarious administrative execution, is unlawful, is justified, and the appeal is without merit.

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

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)