(a) Whether there is a benefit in a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition whose effective period expires;

(b) The case holding that there is no benefit in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition after the period of suspending the operation of the taxi has already elapsed at the closing of the argument

(a) Where the effective period of an administrative disposition is fixed and the validity or execution of the disposition is not suspended, the effect of such administrative disposition is invalidated upon the expiration of the above period. Thus, there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of such disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon due to the remaining shape of the disposition after the expiration of such period.

B. If no material exists to deem that the suspension of the operation of a taxi for 30 days from a specific date was the validity or suspension of the execution of an administrative disposition, and it is apparent that the above period has elapsed at the time of the closing of argument in the court below, and no other circumstance is found to prove that any legal interest was infringed due to the remainder of the above disposition, the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above disposition

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1045 Decided January 17, 1989 (Gong1989,308) 89Nu4833 Decided November 14, 1989 (Gong1990,61) 89Nu1032 Decided January 12, 1990 (Gong190,471)

Moly-type

Head of Gu Gun

Gwangju High Court Decision 90Gu409 delivered on December 4, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine ex officio.

In a case where the effective period of an administrative disposition is fixed and the validity or execution of the disposition is not suspended, the effect of the administrative disposition is invalidated at the expiration of the above period. Thus, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon due to the remaining effect of the disposition after the expiration of such period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4833, Nov. 14, 1989; 89Nu1032, Jan. 12, 1990).

According to the records, the administrative disposition of this case is about the suspension of the operation of the 4.1892 taxi from March 19, 1990 to April 17 of the same year, which is owned by the plaintiff, for 30 days, from March 19, 199 to April 17 of the same year, and it is obvious that the above period has elapsed at the time of the closing of argument in the court below without any material to deem that the validity or suspension of the above administrative disposition was effective or suspended, and there is no particular circumstance that any legal interest has been infringed due to the remainder of the above disposition.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest of litigation in the administrative litigation, even though the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because it has no interest and should have been dismissed.

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)