A. Measures to be taken by the court where the designation of the defendant was wrong in administrative litigation

(b) there is any interest in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition whose effective period has expired or the nullification thereof;

A. In an administrative litigation, if the Plaintiff erroneously designated an administrative agency that is not a disposition agency as a defendant, the court should exercise its right of explanation and have the Plaintiff correct the Defendant as a disposition agency and proceed with the litigation.

B. Where the effective period of an administrative disposition is specified, the effect of the administrative disposition shall be invalidated upon the lapse of such period. Thus, after the expiration of the effective period, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation or invalidity confirmation of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the disposition is in violation of certain legal interests due to the remaining external form.

(a) Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 12 and 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 78Nu485 delivered on July 24, 1979; 85Nu621 delivered on November 12, 1985; b. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu521 delivered on March 8, 1983; 85Nu32 delivered on May 28, 1985; 87Nu1045 delivered on January 17, 1989

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Cheongnam-do Head of Chungcheongnam-do

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu100 delivered on January 23, 1989

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiffs' right to occupy and use a river site under Articles 11 and 25 (1) of the River Act is unlawful and delegated to the Minister of Construction and Transportation under Article 7 of the River Act and Article 46 (1) 1 (e) of the Enforcement Decree thereof. According to the adopted evidence, the court below determined that the defendant's action of this case was unlawful on the ground that the Do governor entrusted internal delegation by the Minister of Construction and Transportation to the defendant and actually handled the defendant under the name of the Do governor in the name of the Do governor, and that there was no evidence to support that the defendant did not have issued the above administrative disposition under his own name, and that the defendant's right to occupy and use the river site was unlawful.

According to the records, the defendant and the defendant's intervenor clearly recognized the facts of each administrative disposition of this case for which the plaintiffs sought revocation. Thus, the court below should have exercised their right of explanation and let the plaintiffs correct the defendant to the Do governor of Chungcheongnam-nam, who is the disposition agency, if the defendant's designation was erroneous. (See Supreme Court Decision 78Nu405 delivered on July 24, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu621 delivered on November 12, 1985).

Nevertheless, the court below's decision to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case solely on the ground that there is no administrative disposition against the defendant, which is the object of the lawsuit, without taking such measures as above, and it shall be subject to the incomplete hearing and the criticism of the exercise of the right to explanation. Therefore, it is reasonable

However, since the effective period of an administrative disposition is determined upon the expiration of the effective period, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation or nullity of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the disposition is in violation of any legal interest due to the remaining external shape after the expiration of the effective period (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu521, Mar. 8, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu32, May 28, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1045, Jan. 17, 1989).

According to the records, the period of permission to occupy and use each of the river sites of this case for which the plaintiffs sought cancellation is until November 20, 1987, and the period of permission extension due to each of the extension of permission periods of this case is until November 30, 1989, each of the above administrative dispositions has already lost its validity due to the lapse of its validity period. Furthermore, even if each of the above administrative dispositions is remaining external form, there is no circumstance to deem that any legal interest of the plaintiffs was infringed due to the remaining external form, and even if each of the above administrative dispositions is revoked, the disadvantage of the plaintiffs who did not receive the permission to occupy and use during the above period of validity is not recovered, so the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiffs cannot be corrected due to the lapse of the validity period of the administrative disposition, and it is obvious that the lawsuit of this case can not be corrected even if the defendant is corrected to the Cheongnam-do Do governor, which is the disposition authority. Accordingly, even if there is any error as seen earlier, the conclusion of the court below's rejection of the

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)