[2] Whether a person has the right to file an application for an alteration with respect to an administrative disposition that has arisen as the period for filing an action has expired (negative in principle)

If a refusal by an administrative agency against a citizen’s request is an administrative disposition that becomes the subject of an appeal litigation, the right to request the change of an administrative disposition shall be required under the laws and regulations or sound reasoning of the administrative agency. If an administrative agency refuses to accept a citizen’s request without such a basis, it does not affect the applicant’s right or legal interest (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu227, Oct. 23, 1984; 2004Du11626, Apr. 15, 2005; 2004Du11626, Apr. 15, 2005, etc.). In addition, with respect to an administrative disposition that has already occurred as a result of the lapse of the filing period, the right to request the change of the administrative disposition may not be deemed to have the right to request the change in the individual laws and regulations or the right to request such change may be recognized under the interpretation of the relevant

According to the facts duly established by the court below, on November 5, 2002, the defendant added the additional clauses for the plaintiffs to purchase the land of this case, which is owned by the defendant, with the approval of the project plan for the housing construction project plan of this case on November 5, 2002. The plaintiffs filed an application for the modification of the above additional clauses with the purport that only when the above land was transferred on July 24, 2003, and the defendant rejected it on August 25, 2002.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' application of this case requires modification to the subsidiary officers under the approval plan of this case that has already occurred due to the lapse of the filing period, and it does not have any provision that recognizes the right to apply for such modification in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003), and further, it cannot be deemed that the right to apply for such modification is acknowledged under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, even if the defendant refused the application of this case, the right to apply for this cannot be acknowledged under the laws and regulations or the cooking seeking such right. Thus, even if the defendant rejected the application of this case, it does not affect the plaintiffs' rights or legal interests due to such refusal, so the notification of this case, which is

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to request a rejection disposition subject to appeal as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The plaintiffs' ground of appeal that the notification of this case constitutes a rejection disposition on the premise that the right to request a free transfer of land of this case is recognized, even if there was an additional disposition imposing the plaintiffs' right to purchase the land of this case with respect to the approval of the housing construction project plan

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)