(a) Whether the main claim should be legitimate even based on the suspension case itself, based on the requirements for the effect of administrative disposition and the suspension of execution

(b) The meaning of an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation;

(c) A case of dismissing an application for suspension of the participation of unjust enterprisers in the tendering procedure against Korea Land Development Corporation;

A. In a case of an application seeking suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition or suspension of execution, the legitimacy of the administrative disposition itself should not be determined in principle as it is decided through a deliberation in the judgment on the merits ultimately, and the existence or absence of the requirement under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act concerning whether to suspend the effect or execution of the administrative disposition should be determined only. However, in light of the fact that the suspension of execution is recognized as an exception to the principle of suspension of execution of the administrative disposition, and that it is a means of protecting rights premised on the possibility that the plaintiff may win within this case, it should include the requirement that the applicant's request for suspension of execution itself must be legitimate.

B. The term "administrative disposition" subject to an administrative litigation means an act under public law in which an administrative agency, its affiliated agency, or a public organization delegated or entrusted with administrative authority by law directly exercises public authority with respect to matters related to the rights and obligations of the people, and even if that act is an act limiting the rights of the other party, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition unless it is an act of an administrative agency, its affiliated agency, or a public organization

C. The case rejecting an application for the suspension of the validity of a lawsuit filed by the Korea Land Development Corporation against the Korea Land Development Corporation on the ground that there is no legal ground to believe that the Korea Land Development Corporation was delegated the authority to re-disposition against unjust enterprisers with the contents that restrict participation in bidding for a certain period of time, not the administrative disposition subject to the administrative litigation, but the notification of the fact that the other party will not participate in the tender conducted by the Corporation, and it cannot be deemed that there is a limitation on participation in all bidding conducted by the State or a local government under Article 95(2) of the Budget and Accounts Act, Article 62(2) of the Local Finance Act, and Article 62(2) of the Local Finance Act, on the ground that there is the notification of the construction work, it cannot be deemed that there is a limitation on participation in bidding conducted by the State or a local government.

(c)Article 23(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act. Articles 1 and 2(c) of the Budget and Accounts Act, Article 95(2) of the Local Finance Act, Article 62(2) of the Local Finance Act;

A. Supreme Court Order 91Du15 Dated May 2, 1991 (Gong1991, 1527) dated Sep. 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2879) dated Oct. 11, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3132) (Gong1994Ha, 3132) dated Nov. 27, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 281) 82Nu369 Decided Apr. 23, 1985 (Gong1985, 791)

Attorney Park Young-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Seo Jong-woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Order 94Nu593 Dated June 20, 1994

The order of the court below shall be reversed and the other party shall apply for suspension of validity.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the records, the re-appellant made a disposition of dismissal of unjust enterprisers (hereinafter "re-disposition") that restricts participation in bidding from June 7 to December 7 of the same year pursuant to Article 172 of the Accounting Rules of Government-Invested Institutions on June 2, 1994. On June 8, 1994, the other party filed a lawsuit against the re-appellant seeking revocation of the above disposition, and filed an application for suspension of validity of the above disposition. The court below accepted the other party's application and decided suspension of the validity of the above disposition on the grounds that there is no data that the execution of the disposition in this case could cause irreparable damage to the other party due to the execution of the disposition and there is no other urgent reason and there is no possibility that it may have a significant effect on public welfare.

In the case of an application seeking suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition or suspension of execution, the validity of the administrative disposition itself is ultimately determined through a deliberation in the original decision, and it is not, in principle, determined through a deliberation in the original decision, and the existence or absence of the requirements under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act concerning whether to suspend the validity or execution of the administrative disposition is subject to determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 91Du15, May 2, 1991; Decision 91Du15, Sept. 26, 1992; Decision 92Du35, Sept. 26, 1992); furthermore, in light of the fact that the suspension of execution is recognized as an exception to the principle of suspension of execution of an administrative disposition, and that it is a means of protecting rights premised on the possibility of winning the plaintiff in the present decision

On the other hand, an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation refers to an act under public law, in which an administrative agency, its affiliated agency, or a public organization delegated or entrusted with an administrative authority under the law directly exercises its effect on matters related to the rights and obligations of the people, and even if it is an act limiting the rights of the other party, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition unless it is an act by an administrative agency, its affiliated agency, or the public organization entrusted with the authority (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3618 delivered on November 27, 192).

According to the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the re-appellant is only a government-invested corporation established under the Korea Land Development Corporation Act and does not have any laws that prescribe the re-appellant as a central administrative agency. The Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions, which stipulates the budget and accounting of government-invested institutions pursuant to Article 11 of the Budget and Accounts Act, does not apply Article 95 of the Budget and Accounts Act or Article 130 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, the re-appellant is clear that the re-appellant does not fall under the "head of each central government agency" under the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is clear that Article 172 of the Accounting Rules of Government-Invested Institutions, which is the basis for the disciplinary disposition of this case, was enacted pursuant to Article 20 of the Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions, which shall be prescribed by the Minister of Finance and Economy for matters concerning the accounting standards and procedures of government-invested institutions. However, the above provisions can not be said to have the effect of external binding

Therefore, since there is no legal ground to deem that the re-appellant is an administrative agency under the Administrative Litigation Act, its affiliated agency, or the authority of the disciplinary measure of this case was delegated by this, the above disciplinary measure of this case filed by the re-appellant is not an administrative disposition subject to the administrative litigation, but merely an act of notifying the other party's participation in the tender conducted by the re-appellant, and it cannot be deemed that there is a notification act of this notification by the re-appellant and it is an act of restricting the qualification of participation in all tenders conducted by the State or a local government under Article 95 (2) of the Budget and Accounts Act and Article 62 (2) of the Local Finance Act. Thus, the lawsuit of this case filed by the other party against

Nevertheless, the order of the court below, which received the other party's application of this case, shall be deemed to have committed an error of law which affected the decision by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the requirements for suspension of execution under Article 23 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which affected the decision.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed without examining the remaining grounds for reappeal and it is deemed sufficient to directly judge a party member. Therefore, the application for suspension of validity of the other party is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)