[1] Whether it is not clear whether the applicant's request for the principal of the case should not be justified even by the suspension of execution itself (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that as to an application for the suspension of validity of a non-Confidence resolution of the Education Committee's design resolution, it is obvious that the claim on the merits itself does not meet the requirement of suspension of validity

[1] In a case seeking suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition or suspension of execution, the validity of an administrative disposition itself is not determined in principle, since it is not determined through deliberation in the judgment on the merits, and the validity of the administrative disposition itself is not determined in principle, and only the existence of the requirements prescribed in Articles 23(2) and 23(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act with respect to whether the administrative disposition will be effective or suspended, but the suspension of its validity or suspension of execution is the object of determination. However, in order to prevent an applicant from being rendered a favorable judgment at the same time until he/she receives a favorable judgment in the case on the merits, the applicant’s status is protected until he/she receives a favorable judgment in the lawsuit on the merits. Thus, recognizing the validity of the disposition or the suspension of execution without possibility of revocation in the lawsuit on the merits is contrary to the purport of the system.

[2] In a case where at the regular meeting of the Education Committee, a bill of non-Confidence agreement was submitted by the document of a written statement form signed by a majority of the incumbent members among the meetings on the agenda at the regular meeting of the Education Committee, and was adopted as a bill by the majority of all incumbent members and passed as a whole without objection, the chairman of the non-Confidence subject to non-Confidence applies for the suspension of the validity of the relevant design non-Confidence resolution, the case holding that the application for the suspension of the validity of the non-Confidence resolution does not meet the requirement of the suspension of the validity, because it is evident that there is no reason for the non-Confidence resolution itself by the case of the suspension of the validity itself, and it does not affect the result on the ground that the claim for the suspension of the validity of the principal claim does not meet the requirements under Article 23 (2

[1] Article 23 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 15 (4) of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Articles 8 and 31 (2) of the Rules of the Seoul Metropolitan Education Council, Article 23 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Order 92Du14 dated Jun. 8, 1992 (Gong1992, 2153) 94Du36 dated Feb. 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1491) Supreme Court Order 95Du22 dated Jun. 7, 1995 (Gong1991Ha, 2592), Supreme Court Order 95Du53 dated Nov. 23, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 93)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Metropolitan Government Board of Education (Seo Law Firm, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 96Nu1591 dated December 6, 1996

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds for reappeal of the re-appellant and the re-appellant are examined together.

In the case of applying for suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition or suspension of execution, the validity of an administrative disposition itself should not be determined, in principle, through a deliberation in the judgment on the merits, and the validity of the administrative disposition itself should not be determined in light of the purpose of the system, and only the existence of the requirements prescribed in Article 23(2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act with respect to whether to suspend the validity or execution of the administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 95Du22, Jun. 7, 1995; Order 95Du53, Nov. 23, 1995; etc.). However, the suspension of its validity or suspension of execution aims to prevent the applicant from getting a favorable judgment of the same time until the applicant receives a favorable judgment in the case on the merits. Thus, recognizing the validity of the disposition or the suspension of execution without the possibility of revocation in the lawsuit on the merits is contrary to the purport of the system, and it should also include the requirements of suspension of its validity or suspension of execution.

Article 8 of the Rules of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Board of Education (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of the Meeting") enacted on the basis of Article 15 (4) of the Local Education Autonomy Act shall be prepared and distributed to the members in advance the agenda stating the date, time, place, and order of the meeting (Paragraph 1). In this case, the committee may change the agenda referred to in paragraph 1 to its resolution or add other agenda to it. In this case, with the consent of at least 1/5 of the incumbent members under joint signatures, it shall be required to omit the debate and decide only the agenda (Paragraph 2). Article 28 of the Rules of the Meeting provides that the chairperson shall decide whether he/she has a separate vote or secret vote (Paragraph 1). Article 31 (2) of the Rules of the Meeting provides that "No non-Confidence-Confidence proposal shall be adopted for the purpose of the resolution of the Committee's non-Confidence, which is a non-Confidence proposal, as the resolution of the Committee's proposal or the consent of the Committee's members.

In addition, as duly admitted by the court below, at the 56th extraordinary session of January 29, 1996 ( obvious that it is a clerical error in the court below's order of January 26, 1996), the recommendation to suspend the execution of the portion of the revised amount out of the special account budget for educational expenses of 96 was passed as a whole, but the re-appellant did not transfer it to the superintendent of education on the ground that it is illegal decision. In addition, at the 61th extraordinary session of May 7, 1996, the non-Confidence agreement for the re-appellant was submitted with the joint signature of 13 educational members, but the re-appellant did not arbitrarily submit it as an agenda for non-Confidence under Article 49 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, on the ground that it does not constitute a non-Confidence reason as stipulated under Article 49 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, there is no reason to assert that there is a substantial illegal reason in the non-Confidence resolution of this case.

As above, as long as the application of this case does not meet the requirements of suspension of validity under Article 23 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, even in the case of suspension of validity itself, it is not clear whether the application of this case satisfies the requirements under Article 23 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

In the same purport, the order of the court below that dismissed the re-appellant's application of this case is just, and there are no errors as alleged.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)