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

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose business purpose is real estate leasing business, etc.

B. On February 14, 2014, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for the production of VIPS parking facility installation works (hereinafter “instant construction”) to a corporation prior to mobilization to KRW 452,00 for construction cost. On June 2, 2014, the Defendant, in violation of Article 30(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Management Act, issued a prior notice of imposition of fines for negligence (hereinafter “prior notice of this case”) to the Plaintiff on June 15, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to appropriate funds for occupational health and safety management for the instant construction in violation of Article 30(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Management Act for the contract amount.

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid an administrative fine of KRW 5,60,000 on June 16, 2014. 【Grounds for Recognition】 The Plaintiff did not have any dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

B. The term “administrative disposition,” which is the subject of an appeal litigation, refers to, in principle, an act of an administrative agency’s public act that directly affects the rights and obligations of the general public by ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations under Acts and subordinate statutes with respect to a specific matter, or by causing other legal effects (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du3541, Sept. 27, 2012). According to Article 16 of the Regulation of Violations of Public Order Act, when an administrative agency intends to impose an administrative fine with respect to a violation of public order, it shall notify the parties of the matters prescribed by Presidential Decree in advance and give them an opportunity to present their opinions within a prescribed period of not less than 10 days (see Paragraph (1)), and the parties may state their opinions or submit necessary materials within the submission deadline prescribed by Presidential Decree (see Paragraph (2)), and an

(3) According to Article 18 of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, an administrative agency may reduce an administrative fine, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if a party intends to voluntarily pay an administrative fine within the deadline for submitting an opinion under Article 16 (1). If a party has paid an administrative fine reduced under paragraph (1), the imposition and collection procedure for the relevant violation of public order shall be terminated (Paragraph (2). According to Articles 17(1) and 20(1) and (2) of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, an administrative agency shall impose an administrative fine in writing after completing the procedure for submitting an opinion under Article 16. A party dissatisfied with the imposition of an administrative fine may file an objection in writing with the relevant administrative agency within 60 days from the date on which he/she is notified of the imposition of the administrative fine

D. Therefore, prior notice of the imposition of a fine for negligence by an administrative agency pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order is merely an act of informing that an administrative fine is scheduled to be imposed in the future and giving the parties an opportunity to present their opinions on it, and it does not constitute an act of imposing a certain obligation on the parties or causing other legal effects, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du19369, Oct. 11, 2012). Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the prior notice of this case is unlawful because it lacks the eligibility for appeal litigation, and thus, is not an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.

Judges' Branch Office Counter

Judges Domination

A person shall be appointed.