logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1962. 5. 24. 선고 62누4 판결
[귀속재산징발처분취소][집10(2)행,078]
Main Issues

The scope of litigation subject to the Administrative Litigation Act

Summary of Judgment

Since a lawsuit subject to the Administrative Litigation Act includes a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of an administrative disposition, if a declaration of invalidation is sought, it shall be tried with an explanation as to whether the purport of invalidation includes the non-existence of the non-existence.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

University, a foundation, a single university

Defendant-Appellee

Navy Chief of Staff

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 61Da145 delivered on April 26, 1961

Text

The original judgment shall be reversed and the judgment

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a lawsuit subject to the Administrative Litigation Act is governed by this Act as well as litigation procedures concerning the cancellation or modification of an administrative disposition against an illegal act of an administrative agency or its affiliated agency, as well as litigation procedures concerning legal relationship under public law shall be interpreted and interpreted as including not only a lawsuit on appeal but also a lawsuit on confirmation of the non-existence of an administrative disposition. The purport of the plaintiff's claim is to seek the cancellation of the administrative disposition under this case and the purport of the cancellation is clearly stated as the declaration of invalidation, so long as the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the administrative disposition is allowed, the court below should judge the lawsuit on the ground that the non-existence of the administrative disposition is included in the non-existence of the non-existence of the purport of the administrative disposition. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-existence of administrative disposition under Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, notwithstanding the fact that the non-existence of the administrative disposition is not included in the non-existence of the purport of the invalidation.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man

arrow
본문참조조문
기타문서