Effect of administrative litigation judgment

When the judgment of administrative litigation becomes final and conclusive, it is binding upon all related parties and administrative agencies related to the case, such as administrative acts in which certain legal relations are formed and gathered according to the contents of the order, so in this case, as long as the judgment of administrative litigation becomes final and conclusive, the plaintiff can claim the right of lease against the government officer or the defendant even if the plaintiff does not conclude the lease contract with the government officer.

Article 13 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Malelele, Attorney Choi Doh-ho

Seoul District Court of the first instance, the Seoul High Court of the second instance, and the Seoul High Court of the second instance 56 civil defense918 delivered on April 17, 1957

The final appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

According to the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment as to this case, the defendant's first instance court's decision acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff, on June 2, 4287, entered into a lease agreement with the Director-General of Government-General of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff on the building on December 7 of the same year, the plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit against the Director-General of Government-General in November of the same year against the Seoul High Court, and as a result, the defendant participated in the lawsuit against the defendant or the Director-General in December 7, 4288, that the above court did not confirm the lease agreement with the defendant as to this case on June 9 of the same year, and that the lease agreement with the plaintiff on the same building was revoked due to the dismissal of the original judgment on June 2 of the same year, and that the lease agreement was revoked by the court of first instance on the premise that the plaintiff could not have been revoked by the judgment of the court of second instance as to this case's lease agreement.

However, in an administrative litigation against the plaintiff in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the plaintiff sought a confirmation of the house lease disposition against the plaintiff on June 2, 4287 in addition to seeking the cancellation of the lease contract on the part of the government and the defendant on the part of the government and the defendant on the part of the plaintiff on the second day of December 4287. In substance, the plaintiff sought the cancellation of the lease disposition with the government and the defendant on the ground that the lease right acquired by the contract on June 2 of the same year was infringed upon by the contract on June 2 of the same year due to the illegal disposition by the government and the government and the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff infringed on the lease right acquired by the contract on the part of the government and the defendant on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the government and the government and the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the government and the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the administrative litigation (the defendant's supplementary intervenor in the government and the defendant on the part of the government and the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff's claim.

The second judgment of the court of first instance, which accepted the original judgment, held that the defendant's defense was unfair because the court of first instance held that the defendant's defense did not exist in the administrative litigation against the building, even if the court of first instance recognized the existence of the plaintiff's right of lease, even though the court of second judgment acknowledged the existence of the plaintiff's right of lease against the building, the plaintiff did not conclude the lease contract again with the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not have any administrative disposition to conclude the lease contract with the plaintiff, the plaintiff would be bound by the government of second judgment, and the plaintiff could immediately exercise the right of lease on behalf of the Republic of Korea and the defendant on behalf of the Republic of Korea without delay. However, since the judgment of the court of first instance did not affect the government of second instance, the judgment of the court of second instance is invalid, and the right of lease was only effective by the administrative disposition, and the right of lease was directly generated by the administrative disposition.

However, when the judgment of administrative litigation becomes final and conclusive, a certain legal relationship is formed according to the contents of the order and the detention of all related parties and administrative agencies and administrative agencies related to the case in question, so in this case, as long as the judgment of administrative litigation was established in this case, the plaintiff can claim the right of lease against the government officer or the defendant even if the plaintiff does not conclude the lease contract with the government officer or the defendant, and the judgment of the court below that

Therefore, since the appeal of this case is clearly groundless, it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 401, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)