취소소송에서의 소 변경 = Change of Action in Revocation suit

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Looking at revocation suit, it is difficult to determine whether it is eligible for disposition, there is a limit to the filing period, and in some cases, it must go through a pre-trial procedure. Therefore, the requirements for litigation that the Plaintiff must consider when filing a lawsuit are difficult. Meanwhile, the administrative agency can cancel, withdraw, add, or change the disposition, and the same is true even after a revocation suit has been filed. For this reason, the Plaintiff's litigation status filing a revocation suit is unstable. The change of action is a system that can correct a lawsuit that has been wrongly filed in the first place or due to a change in circumstances while maintaining the existing procedure. The Plaintiff may correct mistakes in litigation proceedings or overcome unfavorable situations by utilizing the change of lawsuit system.In addition, since the litigation procedure initiated by the original lawsuit is maintained and existing litigation data can be used, the Plaintiff can save time and economic costs. However, there has not been much discussion on the change of action under the Administrative Litigation Act, so there is some controversy over the requirements and scope of the change of action, and such uncertainty of the change of action system hinders the use of this system. In this article, it was reviewed mainly on controversial issues in the change of action system, and also attempted to associate the change of action with the concept of Object of litigation.
In Article 21 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the type and scope of litigation that can be changed and the meaning of the requirements for change of action were reviewed. In Article 22 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the meaning of the change of disposition and the validity of the period (60 days) were reviewed. In Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act, relief measures were reviewed in cases where it was needed to remedy the Plaintiff because the retroactive effect was not recognized when the lawsuit was changed.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 마용주, "현대행정과 행정소송의 제문제 ; 행정소송법상 소의 변경" 49 (49): 2000
• 2 안철상, "행정소송에서의 소의 변경과 새로운 소의 제소기간" 한국행정판례연구회 11 : 271-314, 2006
• 3 윤지현, "행정소송법 제22조가 정하는‘처분변경으로 인한 소의 변경’과 과세처분 취소소송" 한국법학원 (129) : 249-296, 2012
• 4 홍정선, "행정법특강" 박영사 2014
• 5 이일세, "행정법총론" 법문사 2022
• 6 홍준형, "행정법총론" 한울아카데미 2001
• 7 박정훈, "행정법연구2-행정소송의 구조와 기능" 박영사 2006
• 8 유지태, "행정법신론" 박영사 2019
• 9 박균성, "행정법론(상)" 박영사 2011
• 10 김남진, "행정법Ⅰ" 법문사 2015
• 11 김동희, "행정법Ⅰ" 박영사 2015
• 12 정형근, "행정법" 피앤씨미디어 2018
• 13 강수경, "취소소송에서 처분사유의 추가ㆍ변경" 법학연구원 28 (28): 105-142, 2018
• 14 김철용, "주석 행정소송법" 박영사 2004
• 15 이시윤, "신민사소송법" 박영사 2022
• 16 황형모, "소송물이론에 관련된 비주류적 판례에 대한 평가와 소송물의 식별에 관한 실천적・시론적 검토" 법학연구소 (53) : 295-339, 2011
• 17 김치환, "도로점용료 부과처분에 있어서의 직권취소" 한국행정판례연구회 25 (25): 3-34, 2020
• 18 이승민, "공정거래법상 자진신고자 등에 대한 제재 및 감면처분의 행정소송상 취급 - 대법원 2015. 2. 12. 선고 2013두987 판결에 대한 비판적 검토 -" 행정법이론실무학회 (46) : 347-387, 2016
• 19 박유신, "行政訴訟에 있어서 當初 提起한 不適法한 訴를 請求趣旨變更에 의하여 바로잡은 境遇, 이를 새로운 訴로 보아야 할것인지 與否" 40 (40): 1991