The nature of the claim for compensation under Article 23 (1) 4 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction.

Compensation measures under paragraph 1 (4) of this article are administrative dispositions that are subject to administrative litigation.

Article 23(1) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 23(2) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, the proviso to Article 8(1)4 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

This Rule (Attorney Kim Hong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Minister of Finance and Economy (Attorney Shin Tae-ok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 62Gu342 delivered on November 7, 1963

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's agent are examined.

However, unlike the mere claim for damages under private law, since the claim for damages such as this case has the character as a name of debt which imposes a property obligation on the people by unilateral declaration of intention of an administrative agency, it is reasonable to regard it as an administrative disposition that is the premise of a disposition for arrears against a person liable for tax payment. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider such disposition as an administrative disposition that is the object of administrative litigation, and it cannot be an exception to the above principle because it is an economic claim only. The judgment of the court below is just and the decision of the court below that the claim for damages under Article 23 (1) 4 of the Act can not be regarded as an exception to the above principle because it is an administrative disposition that is the object of administrative litigation, and even though it can be realized as a power by the example of a disposition for arrears under Article 23 (2) 4 of the Act, it cannot be deemed that it does not exercise a public power against the people of the State, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore it is not a legal

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, according to the judgment of the court below, the court below did not accept the plaintiff's claim on November 17, 1956 between the original defendant and the original defendant on October 21, 1961 on the ground that the revocation of the share sales contract of this case concluded on November 17, 1956 was illegal or without any justifiable reason. However, with regard to such revocation, the court below recognized the fact that the Seoul High Court rendered a decision to suspend execution on November 21, 1961, and judged that the defendant's claim for compensation on the premise that the above revocation is effective after the decision to suspend execution was made cannot be made. Further, after examining the records in detail, the defendant's claim for compensation for this case was made on the ground that the share sales contract of this case on November 17, 1957 was null and void, and it is clear that the plaintiff did not perform his duty as a manager before full payment of the purchase price pursuant to the sales contract was made, and therefore there is no error in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, according to Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 400, 395, 384, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, all participating judges are decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu