1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The case shall be transferred to the Seoul Administrative Court.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

ex officio deemed.

Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the transfer of the administrative litigation to the competent court shall be made by applying Article 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Act in cases where the administrative litigation is filed to a court with a different level without the plaintiff's intention

Therefore, it is desirable to transfer a lawsuit in violation of jurisdiction to the competent court rather than to dismiss it on account of its illegality in terms of the party’s remedy for infringement of rights or the economy of the lawsuit. Therefore, in cases where the Plaintiff erroneously filed a lawsuit in a civil lawsuit without intention or gross negligence, if the court of the lawsuit does not have jurisdiction over the administrative litigation, it should not dismiss it as an unlawful lawsuit, but rather transfer it to the competent court

However, even if an administrative litigation has been filed as an administrative litigation because it is obvious that the litigation has already been filed as an administrative litigation, such as the prior trial procedure as an administrative litigation, the filing period has already been exceeded, or there has been no disposition subject to an administrative litigation, etc., even if there has been no administrative litigation, it should not be an improper case

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da28960, May 30, 1997; 2007Da25261, Jul. 24, 2008). The registration of seizure of the instant forest land (Seoul forest and C forest and C forest and C forest and 76,036 square meters), which is the tax authority, was made by the head of the Port Tax Office, and the public sale procedure of the instant forest and C forest, which is a part of the disposition for arrears, was performed by the defendant under the National Tax Collection Act, but in such a case, the public sale is deemed to have been performed by the head of the Port Tax Office under Article 61(5) of the National Tax Collection Act

In addition, the procedure for distributing the proceeds from the public sale of the forest of this case may be conducted by the defendant on behalf of the defendant, but such distribution of money shall be deemed to have been conducted by the head of a tax office (see the proviso of Article 80(1) of the National Tax Collection Act). The details of the above relevant laws and regulations