Qualifications for defendant in an administrative litigation

Unless otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts, an administrative litigation seeking the revocation or invalidity of an administrative disposition shall be the defendant with the administrative disposition, etc., which was conducted in his/her name externally, which was the subject of the lawsuit, and is not different from that conducted by the instruction or notification of the superior administrative agency or other administrative agency. The administrative agency upon delegation or entrustment of authority does not mean any disposition made in its name under its legitimate authority, and the administrative agency upon acceptance of delegation or entrustment of authority does not mean any disposition made in its name, and it is merely an internal delegation or delegation of authority, and without disclosing the name of the original administrative agency or the representative relationship, an administrative agency without the authority to make a disposition under its name shall also become the defendant with respect to the

Article 13 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5641 delivered on February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1094) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu520 delivered on October 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 273) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1197 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1979)

Plaintiff

The head of the Gu of the Busan Metropolitan City

Busan High Court Decision 94Gu7614 delivered on August 31, 1995

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

Unless otherwise provided in other Acts, an administrative litigation seeking the revocation or invalidity confirmation of an administrative disposition shall be the defendant of an administrative disposition, etc., which is the subject of the lawsuit, which is the subject of the administrative disposition, under the external name of the administrative agency, and is not different from the administrative disposition, by the instruction or notification of the superior administrative agency or other administrative agency. The administrative agency upon delegation or entrustment of authority does not mean any disposition under its legitimate authority, and it is merely an internal delegation or delegation of authority, and it is merely an internal delegation or delegation of authority, and the administrative agency, without disclosing the name of the original administrative agency, shall also become the defendant of the disposition under its name without the authority of the administrative agency which has no authority to take the disposition (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu1197, Jun. 14, 1994; 90Nu5641, Feb. 22, 1991).

According to the records, the notice of the payment of the farmland creation cost and the exclusive use charge against the plaintiff is recognized as being conducted by the Rural Development Corporation in accordance with the details notified by the defendant to the Rural Development Corporation pursuant to Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Conservation and Utilization Act, and Article 35-3 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Special Measures for Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages. In such a case, the administrative agency which has made the disposition externally shall be deemed as the Rural Development Corporation, and the defendant of the appeal seeking the cancellation of the above disposition, regardless of whether it has legitimate authority, shall be the Rural Development Corporation (see

In addition, according to Article 4 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act, Article 8 of the same Act, Article 8-2, Article 8-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 45-2, Article 74 of the Act on the Special Measures for Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, Article 52-3, Article 52-4, Article 83 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 35-2, Article 35-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 32 of the Rural Development Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act, Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 36 of the same Act, the notification of farmland creation cost and farmland diversion charges on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, etc. is not merely a mere act of receiving farmland, but it is recognized that the delegated authority of collecting farmland is based

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the imposition and collection right of farmland creation cost and farmland diversion charges and the eligibility for defendant in an appeal litigation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment below is reversed ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, and the case

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)