Whether the head of a Gun's notification of suspension of a voluntary damage to land constitutes an administrative disposition

It is clear that the head of a Gun's notification of suspension is an administrative disposition which infringes on the legal status of the operator of the business, and even if the recommended matters are added to the administrative disposition, there is no change in the nature of the administrative disposition.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Korean Pharmaceutical Industry Cooperatives (Attorney Park Jae-woo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Lee Sung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu453 delivered on February 9, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Ground of appeal No. 1

It shall be interpreted that an administrative disposition which is the object of appeal litigation is an act of an administrative agency under the public law, which directly changes the specific rights and duties of the citizens, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the obligations under the laws and regulations on a specific matter and giving other legal effects. According to the records, the plaintiff's implementation plan for an industrial base development project for the land of 661,160 square meters including the land in this case is approved, and the site suspension work for the above project was commenced from May 18 of the same year, and the defendant asked the non-party 6.21 of the same year about the after-sales management of farmland completed under the Rural Modernization Promotion Act on the ground that there is no provision for application of the Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act to the non-party 1 of the above after-sales management of the land in this case, and the land in this case is arbitrarily damaged among the development site executed by the plaintiff for the restricted industrial complex construction project, and it is not clear that the land in this case is damaged by the plaintiff 1 of this case's industrial base construction project, and it is not clearly notified that it is an administrative disposition.

2. The second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that according to the evidence submitted by the defendant, some official documents related to the development of the land of this case indicate that farmland expansion development projects are farmland in some official documents related to the development of the land of this case and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the land of this case was farmland developed under the Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act, although the state had already paid construction expenses due to the implementation of the project, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the land of this case was farmland developed under the Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act. Furthermore, since the land of this case was farmland developed under the Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act, the defendant's disposition of this case which is based on the premise that the land of this case was farmland developed under the Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act is illegal. Accordingly, the court below's findings of fact and judgment are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the farmland enlargement promotion project and the interpretation of conditions according to the approval of execution plan of the industrial base development project under

3. 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 judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)