(a) The legality of a lawsuit disputing the validity of the disposition, which is revoked by the administrative agency that issued the disposition (negative);

B. In a case where the defendant administrative agency voluntarily revoked the above disposition of vicarious execution, because it is a defective disposition by an agency without authority that made an error in the administrative vicarious execution disposition against the plaintiffs, the lawsuit of this case where the plaintiffs dispute the validity of the above disposition of vicarious execution is unlawful.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan City Mayor (Attorney Han Han-dae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 81Gu8 delivered on March 2, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant recognized the fact that he himself is a defective disposition by an agency which has not been authorized to take place a mistake in the administrative vicarious execution disposition of December 23, 1980 against the plaintiffs, and thus, the defendant's revocation of the administrative vicarious execution disposition of January 13, 1982. Thus, the objection to the defendant's vicarious execution disposition of this case against the plaintiffs is dismissed by the defendant's revocation of the right to revoke it by the administrative agency which lawfully holds the right to revoke it. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the observation by the superior administrative agency and subordinate administrative agencies, or in the violation of the principle of administrative expenses, and therefore all the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)