(a) The need for the administrative litigation and the pre-trial procedure claiming revocation in the sense of seeking a declaration of invalidation (affirmative);

B. Whether the purport of seeking confirmation of invalidity can be deemed to be included in a claim for revocation of an appeal (negative)

A. A claim seeking revocation in the sense of declaring the invalidity of an administrative disposition is also an appeal litigation in that it seeks revocation by a competent authority with respect to an administrative disposition that is externally in existence. Therefore, it is necessary to go through a prior trial procedure as a requirement for filing an appeal.

B. It cannot be deemed that the purport of seeking confirmation of invalidity is included in the content of seeking revocation of the disposition of succession.

(a) Article 2 (b) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 75Nu128 delivered on February 24, 1976, 75Nu128 delivered on May 26, 1970, 81Nu424 delivered on June 22, 1982

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

l. Bll. Ol.

Daegu High Court Decision 80Gu128 delivered on January 27, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney Park Jong-yang and the additional reasons for the supplement of the grounds are examined together.

1. According to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendant notified the plaintiff as 150-406 forest No. 1506 of July 4, 1980 to the plaintiff on the ground that the original building owned by the defendant was an illegal building, and the defendant ordered the plaintiff as of March 24, 1980 to voluntarily remove the building, but he did not comply with the plaintiff's order and ordered the plaintiff to voluntarily remove the building, and received 2,400,000 won at the cost of the compensation for the removal of the building and the relocation relief, and then notified the plaintiff as 150-454 of the forest No. 150 to the plaintiff on July 25, 1980, and the defendant demanded the removal of the building again and did not remove the building by August 10, 1980.

If the facts are the same, the defendant's notification to the plaintiff as the forest No. 150-454 of July 25, 1980 is merely a mere fact that the defendant urged and urged the plaintiff to perform the duty of demolition of buildings as of March 24, 1980, which was issued earlier, and suspended the time to start the vicarious execution until August 10, 1980, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the previous order was cancelled by itself and issued a new order, or that the previous order became null and void as a matter of course, on the premise of the contrary that the notification content under the above No. 150-454 of the forest No. 150 of July 25, 1980 constitutes a new order, there is no ground for appeal to the court below that there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the nature and validity of the previous order, and the procedure of rescission, etc.

2. A claim seeking revocation in the sense of declaring the invalidity of an administrative disposition is also an appeal litigation in that it seeks revocation by a competent agency with respect to an administrative disposition, which may be externally in existence, and therefore, it is required to undergo a prior trial procedure as a requirement for filing an appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 75Nu128, Feb. 24, 1976). In addition, it cannot be deemed that the purport of seeking nullification is not included in the Plaintiff’s petition seeking revocation of a prior appeal disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu424, Jun. 22, 1982; 70Nu30, May 26, 1970). Therefore, the appeal seeking revocation of a prior appeal cannot be adopted on the grounds of the contrary

3. The remaining grounds of appeal are disputing the validity of the disposition of the extension at the original time and asserted that there was an error of incomplete deliberation. The judgment of the court below is without merit since the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case was not lawfully followed and thus dismissed as it judged unlawful. Thus, all of the judgment below's grounds of appeal are not proper.

4. 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 Il-young (Presiding Justice)