2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On June 26, 2009, the Plaintiff sent a written petition (hereinafter referred to as “instant civil petition”) to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not notify in writing the results of treatment of the instant civil petition, and notified by telephone. The reply to the instant civil petition is in violation of Article 15 of the former Civil Petitions Treatment Act (amended by Act No. 11492, Oct. 22, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply). The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the dismissal on the ground of its violation of jurisdiction is illegal even though the Central Administrative Appeals Commission should have deliberated on the petition.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff retired on November 17, 2008 due to cerebrovascular while serving in the National Tax Service B Tax Service. The Plaintiff filed an application for long-term care with the Korea National Health Insurance Corporation's branch office, which was determined as Grade 3 of long-term care on June 1, 2009.

B. On June 17, 2009, the Plaintiff demanded the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”), the Plaintiff classified the Plaintiff as long-term care class 3, and filed a civil petition asking the Plaintiff as to whether he/she would be deprived of the Plaintiff’s opportunity for dissatisfaction by refusing to submit a copy, and received a civil petition reply from the Service on June 19, 2009.

On July 7, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Service for the same purpose. On July 15, 2009, the Plaintiff received a civil petition reply that the Plaintiff may file a request for information disclosure and file an objection.

C. On June 29, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition of this case with the purport of requesting the Defendant to verify the “the grounds for refusing the request for a copy of the supporting document for the determination of the class 3 of the medical care grade and the reasons for depriving the Plaintiff of the opportunity to appeal accordingly”. Accordingly, on July 2, 2009, the Defendant explained to the Plaintiff on July 2, 2009 that the underlying document for the grading should be based on the request for information disclosure by telephone, and that the Plaintiff’s response to such request was resolved as the Plaintiff’s civil petition was resolved immediately.

D. However, on July 22, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a second civil petition with the same purport to the Defendant, and on July 23, 2009, the Defendant respondeded to the same purport by telephone, but requested a written reply to the same effect. However, on July 24, 2007, the Plaintiff received a written reply stating that “The Plaintiff may file a request for a grading change or file a formal objection.”

E. On August 4, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a three-dimensional civil petition with the same purport while having no response to the instant civil petition with the Defendant. On August 10, 2009, the Plaintiff received a written reply with reference to the information provision cooperation and the procedures for protesting against the grading, as it was referred to in the Defendant’s guidance on the information provision cooperation and the procedures for protesting against the grading, and it would be terminated without response.

F. On July 2, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal demanding the Central Administrative Appeals Commission to reply in writing on the ground that the Defendant made a verbal reply and terminated a civil petition. However, on November 21, 2012, the Plaintiff’s claim for administrative appeal against the disposition or omission by the Board of Audit and Inspection was dismissed on the ground that it was unlawful for violating jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6(1)1 of the Administrative Appeals Act (hereinafter “instant adjudication”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination

1) We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

The Administrative Litigation Act provides that an appeal may be filed against a disposition, etc. or omission by an administrative agency (Article 3 subparagraph 1), and the term "disposition, etc." means the exercise or refusal of public authority as a law enforcement with respect to specific facts by an administrative agency, and other similar administrative actions and an adjudication on an administrative appeal (Article 2 (1)). In addition, a revocation of an adjudication and an invalidation lawsuit against an administrative agency are limited to cases where the adjudication itself has an inherent error (Articles 2 (1) 1, 19, and 38).

On the other hand, the civil petition of this case asked the defendant "the reason why the defendant refused the request of a copy of the supporting document which judged the class 3 of the medical care grade and the reason why the defendant deprived of the opportunity to appeal", and the defendant can request the information disclosure to the Corporation, and the answer that the objection procedure, such as the objection as prescribed by the related Acts and subordinate statutes, is caused. In other words, the response to the civil petition of this case is not merely a mere procedural guidance, not a mere procedural guidance, but does not affect the plaintiff's right to remedy regardless of the defendant's answer." Thus, the response to the civil petition of this case cannot be deemed as a "disposition, etc. prescribed by the Administrative Litigation Act" under the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, it is improper to seek its cancellation or confirmation, and as long as the response to the

2) Even if the Plaintiff acted to file a party suit seeking confirmation of illegality in the reply to the instant civil petition, it is without merit in light of the following circumstances.

According to Article 15 of the Act, the head of an administrative agency shall notify in writing a civil petitioner of the processing results of the civil petition filed by the civil petitioner, but in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, he/she may notify the civil petitioner orally or via an information and communications network. In such cases, he/she shall deliver a document on the processing results without delay upon the civil petitioner's request, and Article 24 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22975, Jun. 21, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) recognizes exceptions to giving notice orally or via information and

On the other hand, the civil petition of this case is seeking documents on the classification of the medical care grade against the National Health Insurance Corporation. It is not possible to request the Service to provide information to the Corporation that retains and manages the information pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and request the Defendant who does not hold and manage it to disclose information. Accordingly, the Defendant’s providing the Plaintiff with information on the civil petition to the National Health Insurance Corporation is minor and it is possible to inform the Plaintiff orally. In addition, the purport of the civil petition of this case is to object to the grading of long-term care, and this is to go against the Service by submitting a written objection to the Service pursuant to Article 55 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged and Article 39 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. As such, this is not only a matter of the affairs of the Board of Audit and Inspection, but also a matter of oral notification because it is important to promptly notify the Plaintiff of the civil petition to follow the procedure for objection. This can be said, the Defendant’s response in writing after the Plaintiff’s answer.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Jin-jin

Judges Kim Dong-dong

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.