Main Issues
Cases subject to adjudication in which an administrative disposition is suspended or suspended;
Summary of Judgment
In a case of application for the suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition or suspension of execution, the validity of the administrative disposition itself shall not be determined, but the existence of the requirements under Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act shall be determined whether or not the effect of the administrative disposition or the suspension of execution.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Order 83F12 Dated December 20, 1983 86Du5 Dated March 21, 1986 Dated March 21, 1986
Re-appellant
Head of Ulsan District Gun
upper protection room:
Educational Foundation and the Permanent Institute of Education
United States of America
Daegu High Court Order 86Da17 Decided April 8, 1986
Text
The reappeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
In a case of applying for suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition or suspension of the execution, it is not necessary to determine the legitimacy of the administrative disposition itself, and the existence of the requirements under Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act is subject to determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 83Nu12, Dec. 20, 1983; 86Du5, Mar. 21, 1986). According to the records, the other school juristic person is in north of the upper region at a point of 80 e.g., high school at Ulsan-si, and operated three buses in this case for transportation convenience of about 240 students attending Ulsan-si, and it is hard to see that the other school juristic person's operation of the above three buses in this case is unreasonable for 14,00 won or more per person's use of the bus, and it is hard to see that the other school juristic person's use of the bus in this case's immediate suspension of the operation of the above school for 198Du16,06.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)