종래 취소소송에서의 소송물에 대한 판례 및 통설적 견해는 ‘처분의 위법성 일반’이라는 것이었고, 이를 전제로 여러 법적 문제점들에 대해 논의하여 왔다. 여기에서는 이러한 통설적 견해를 전제로 하면서도 보다 구체적으로 취소소송에서 소송물을 특정하는 요소가 무엇인지에 대하여 중점적으로 고찰하였다. 소송물이론과 깊은 연관을 맺으면서 다투어지고 있는 영역은 처분사유의 추가·변경과 기속력의 법적 성질 부분인데, 이에 대해 지금까지 소송물이론에 근거하여 통일적으로 논의하고 있는 문헌은 소수에 불과하기 때문이다. 따라서 소송법 분야에서 통일적 법리를 제공해 주고 있는 소송물 개념을 이용하여 취소소송에서의 여러 문제에 대해 통일적 접근을 시도한 것이다. 먼저 처분사유의 추가·변경과 관련하여 판례는 오래 전부터 나름대로의 기준을 판시해 왔는데, 그 변경 제한의 이유는 실질적 법치주의 및 국민의 행정신뢰의 확보라는 실체법적 요청을 근거로 한 것이었다. 물론 이러한 실체법적 가치의 실현수단으로 처분사유의 추가·변경을 제한 할 필요성이 있음은 사실이지만, 소송법상 분쟁의 일회적 해결이라는 가치 또한 그에 못지않은 중요한 이념이라는 측면에서 이러한 판례의 타당성에 대하여는 근본적인 재검토가 있어야 할 것이다. 나아가 행정소송법은 민사소송법상 기판력 규정과는 별개로 기속력이라는 실체법적 규정을 마련해 두고 있다. 이에 기속력과 기판력이 어떠한 차이가 있는지 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 이러한 차이점에 대한 분석을 통하여, 기속력 또는 기판력의 효력 범위를 명확히 할 수 있는데, 이는 결국 소송법상의 요청인 분쟁의 일회적 해결이라는 문제와 표리의 관계를 이루고 있기 때문이다. 이러한 문제를 접근하는 방법은 다양할 수 있으나, 이 글에서는 소송물이론에 그 기초를 두고 취소소송에서의 소송물의 특정요소를 보다 구체화함으로써 문제의 본질에 접근하고자 하였다.

A precedent and a common view regarding the object of a lawsuit in the existing litigation for withdrawal were ‘the general illegality of disposition,’ and with this premise, various legal issues have been discussed. This study was based on such a common view, but looked into the elements that specify the object of a lawsuit concretely in the litigation for withdrawal. The areas disputed in a deep relation to the subject matter of a lawsuit theory include the addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act and the legal nature of the binding effect, and this is because there have been just a few pieces of literature that discusses systematically based on the subject matter of a lawsuit theory until now. Thus, this study used the concept of the object of a lawsuit that provides a uniform principle of law in the legal procedure law to attempt uniform approaches to various issues in the litigation for withdrawal. First, the precedent has long decided its own standards concerning the addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act, and the reason for the restriction of changes in them was the substantial rule of law and the substantive legal demand for the security of the people's trust in the administration. of course, it is necessary to limit the addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act as a means of realizing this substantive legal value, but the value of one-off solution of the dispute in the legal procedure law is an idea as important as that, so the validity of this precedent should be fundamentally reconsidered. Moreover, the Administration Litigation Act provides a rule of the binding effect on a substantive law separate from the rules of the res judicata effect on the Civil Procedure Code. Thus, it is necessary to examine what differences there are between the binding effect and the res judicata effect. The range of the binding effect or the res judicata effect can be clarified through an analysis of these differences because they form a relationship of an ambivalent nature with the issue of one-off solution of a dispute, a request on the legal procedure law after all. Approaches to this issue may vary, but this study attempted to approach the essence of the issue by further concretizing the specific elements of the object of a lawsuit in the litigation for withdrawal based on the subject matter of a lawsuit theory.

A precedent and a common view regarding the object of a lawsuit in the existing litigation for withdrawal were ‘the general illegality of disposition,’ and with this premise, various legal issues have been discussed. This study was based on such a common view, but looked into the elements that specify the object of a lawsuit concretely in the litigation for withdrawal. The areas disputed in a deep relation to the subject matter of a lawsuit theory include the addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act and the legal nature of the binding effect, and this is because there have been just a few pieces of literature that discusses systematically based on the subject matter of a lawsuit theory until now. Thus, this study used the concept of the object of a lawsuit that provides a uniform principle of law in the legal procedure law to attempt uniform approaches to various issues in the litigation for withdrawal. First, the precedent has long decided its own standards concerning the addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act, and the reason for the restriction of changes in them was the substantial rule of law and the substantive legal demand for the security of the people's trust in the administration. of course, it is necessary to limit the addition or alteration of grounds for an administrative act as a means of realizing this substantive legal value, but the value of one-off solution of the dispute in the legal procedure law is an idea as important as that, so the validity of this precedent should be fundamentally reconsidered.

the Object of Lawsuit, the General Illegality of Disposition, Administrative Act, the Addition or Alteration, the Binding Effect