B. Whether the request for examination under Article 43(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act constitutes the procedure of a prior trial of administrative litigation (negative)

B. The request for examination as referred to in Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act is merely the purport of having a person interested in the administrative act of the person subject to the audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection examine whether or not the administrative act is legitimate or appropriate to the Board of Audit and Inspection to assist in performing the duties of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and to improve the administrative operation. The procedure for the request for examination is not the procedure of the administrative litigation.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to Articles 3(1) and 3(2) of the Social Organization Registration Act, when a social organization is organized, its representative shall register with competent authorities (hereinafter referred to as “competent authorities”) and when a registered social organization establishes a branch, the representative of the branch office shall register with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, or Do (hereinafter referred to as “branch Offices”) having jurisdiction over the seat of the branch office. Article 33(10) of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority shall delegate the authority concerning the following matters to the Superintendent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, and Do, and Article 23 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority to the Superintendent of the Office of Education. Article 3(1) of the Act on Delegation and Entrustment of Social Organizations provides that “The Minister of Education shall delegate the authority concerning the registration of a social organization other than the Korea Association under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education under the provisions of the Registration of Social Organizations Act to the competent authorities, and it shall not be deemed that the provisions on delegation and entrustment of administrative authority shall be delegated to any subsidiary agency or subordinate administrative agency, or subordinate agency.

As above, the judgment of the court below with the purport of this purport is just, and there is no reason to criticize that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the delegation and entrustment of administrative authority and the invalidation of the return of application for registration of social organization

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2-A.

The court below held that the examination request under Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act is just in accordance with the opinion of the person who has an interest in the administrative act of the person subject to the audit and inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection in order to assist the Board of Audit and Inspection in performing its duties and to improve the operation of administration by examining whether the administrative act is legitimate or not. Thus, the above procedure for the examination request is not a prior trial procedure of administrative litigation. The court below held that the above decision of the court below is not an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the administrative appeal of this case since it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the equality of the case in this case since it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the administrative appeal of this case.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2-B.

The court below determined that the plaintiff's assertion that the lawsuit in this case can be brought without filing an administrative appeal under Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act because the plaintiff had already been dismissed as to the same case. However, the plaintiff's assertion that the case is the same kind of case is difficult to be seen as the same case because it has different grounds for disposition from the parties to the disposition in this case. In light of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the transfer of administrative appeal, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, we cannot accept the issue.

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.