A. Whether Article 8 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act excludes the principle of administrative appeal pre-determination (negative)

B. Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of a disposition of the vicarious execution where the execution of the vicarious execution is completed (negative)

A. Article 8 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act only provides that an appeal against vicarious execution shall not interfere with the court’s right to institute a civil or administrative litigation, and does not provide that an appeal against vicarious execution may be filed without filing an administrative appeal.

B. There is no legal benefit to seek cancellation of the disposition, apart from claiming damages or restitution for the reason that the act is illegal in the event that the execution of vicarious execution is completed as a factual act through the notification procedure by a warrant of vicarious execution prior to the closing of argument in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disposition

(a) Article 7 Section 8 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, Article 18 Section 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu6171 delivered on June 8, 1993 (Gong1985,931) 84Nu753 delivered on May 14, 1985 (Gong1985,931) 84Nu477 delivered on October 22, 1985 (Gong1985,157) 90Nu5528 delivered on October 26, 1990 (Gong190,2443) 2. Supreme Court Decision 67Nu115 delivered on October 23, 1967 (Gong15Nu14) 75Nu230 delivered on January 27, 1976 (Gong1976,894) 13Nu29420 delivered on October 13, 1979 (Gong1984) 19204 delivered on October 24, 194)

Plaintiff

The head of Dobong-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu28596 delivered on February 3, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 18 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, an administrative agency's action for cancellation of an illegal disposition shall not be instituted without going through an adjudication. Article 7 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act provides that an administrative appeal may be filed for vicarious execution. Thus, Article 8 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act applies to a lawsuit for cancellation of an administrative appeal for vicarious execution. Article 8 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act provides that an administrative appeal for cancellation of an administrative appeal for vicarious execution shall not interfere with a court's right to file a civil action or administrative litigation, and it does not provide that an administrative appeal for cancellation may be filed without filing an administrative appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu753, May 14, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu477, Oct. 22, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu528, Oct. 26, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 197Nu1675, Oct. 16, 1997).

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

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)