2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On April 28, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition to return the application for difference payment of childcare benefits to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of 1.1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

The return of the instant application is merely a return request of the Plaintiff, and it is not an administrative disposition because it does not refuse the Plaintiff’s application. The Plaintiff was aware of the disposition on childcare leave benefits on November 8, 2013, at which the notice of payment of childcare leave benefits was served on November 7, 2013, or the final notice of payment of childcare leave benefits was served on November 8, 2013, and the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of 90

B. Determination

(1) Since an administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, is a disposition that directly and legally affects the rights and obligations of citizens among dispositions taken by an administrative agency as an exercise of public authority, such disposition does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, such as a mere de facto notification, and thus, does not directly alter the rights and obligations of the other party or related persons (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu161, Nov.

(2) According to the evidence adopted by the first instance court, the following circumstances are acknowledged. ① The purport of the submission of the written application by 13 persons, including the Plaintiff, etc., to the Defendant on April 25, 2014 is not to say that the submission of the written application by 13 persons, including the Plaintiff, was not the purport of the request for review (except those who are in progress with the procedure for a request for review). It is more reasonable to interpret that the Defendant’s submission of the written application by 12 persons, including the Plaintiff, etc., to request the return of the written application by 12 persons, including the Plaintiff, etc., (except for those who are in progress with the procedure for a request for review), including the Plaintiff, etc., in light of the specific contents of the written application and the details of the document submission, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s return of the written application by 12 persons, including the Plaintiff’s written request for a return of the written application by 12 persons, including the Plaintiff’s written request for a return of the written application.

3. Conclusion

Since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it shall be dismissed, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance and dismissing the lawsuit of this case.

Judges Dok-woo

Judges Yoon Jong-dae