Fairness of administrative disposition

The administrative disposition shall not be null and void as a matter of course, unless it is revoked by a petition or administrative litigation, etc., even if it is related to the affairs of the sea administrative agency.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Law No. 213)

Plaintiff

Defendant

This case is dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's legal representative shall dismiss the plaintiff's claim to revoke the part of the defendant's original judgment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's legal representative shall seek the judgment of the Dong area in Paragraph (1) of this Article. The plaintiff's legal representative shall be the cause of the claim. The plaintiff's legal representative shall be the original property of the building specified in Paragraph (1) of the original judgment, and even though he acquired the right of possession under the lease contract with the government office on September 10, 4286, the plaintiff was illegally occupied without any legal basis such as the attached drawings (i) and (j) 8 square meters in the original judgment, and the subsequent building was illegally occupied without any legal ground, such as the plaintiff's right of possession under the lease contract with the government office on September 10, 4287.

The answer facts and proof relations stated by the defendant's attorney are the same as those stated in the original judgment, and they are cited by the person.

If the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 presumed to be genuine official document and the whole purport of the party's pleading are comprehensively reflected in the contents of the plaintiff evidence Nos. 3, which are presumed to be genuine official document, there is no dispute between the parties concerned, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the government agency on the date of the previous argument and completed the registration of ownership transfer by the decision of the court below, and as long as the original administrative disposition known that the defendant's legal representative's defense about the invalidation of administrative disposition is related to the affairs under the jurisdiction of the administrative agency at sea, it cannot be seen that the objection is naturally null and void unless it is obtained by an appeal or administrative litigation, etc., even if it is in violation of the jurisdiction of the administrative agency at sea. Accordingly, since the defendant has no legitimate title to occupy the building at issue, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's claim for title due to the plaintiff's ownership. Accordingly, Article 391 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act are justified.

Judges Park Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)