The legality of the vicarious execution after the completion of the vicarious execution through the legal procedure to seek confirmation of invalidity of the vicarious execution

Along with the awareness of Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act as to an act ordered to the person under obligation under Article 2 of the same Act and the notification and withdrawal under a warrant for vicarious execution, it is unlawful to seek the invalidity of the disposition on the ground that there is no benefit of confirmation immediately and there is no benefit of protection of rights, and to seek the cancellation of the disposition, as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee and one other, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Attorney Lee Jae-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in Msan City

Daegu High Court Decision 198Hun-Ga7 delivered on October 15, 1975

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ agent’ grounds of appeal.

In the judgment of the court below, with respect to an act ordered to an obligor under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, the court below's decision held that the action for nullification of the disposition shall not be exempted from rejection on the ground that there is no interest in confirmation immediately and there is no interest in the protection of rights as well as seeking revocation of the disposition, in addition to the claim for restitution of damages or restitution for the reason that there is an unlawful reason after the vicarious execution has already been completed as a factual act through the guidance under Article 3 of the same Act and the notification procedure under a writ of vicarious execution, and the vicarious execution has already been completed. In this case, the court below decided that the lawsuit of this case shall not be dismissed on the ground that there is no interest in confirmation immediately, and that there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interest in confirmation and the interest in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 65Nu25, May 31, 1965). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without merit, and all costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)