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

A. On September 7, 2010, the Plaintiff worked as a day-time employee at the site of the water tank removal work located on the third floor rooftop of the building in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, as a water tank removal work site. On the 13th day of the same month, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to an industrial accident with the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (hereinafter “Corporation”) on the 17th day of the same month, subject to the diagnosis of the c Hospital for the relevant industrial accident.

B. On October 18, 2010, the Corporation rejected the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the total construction cost of the place of business where the Plaintiff provided labor is merely 1.3 million won and thus falls under the exclusion from the application of industrial accident compensation insurance, and that the 1,2nd floor and the 1,2nd floor and the 2nd floor of the same building are not the same place of business as the ordering person and the receiving company. (hereinafter “instant non-approval disposition”).

C. On January 10, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the disposition of non-approval of the instant medical care benefit, and filed a request for examination with the Defendant for the disposition of non-approval of the instant medical care benefit under Article 43(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act (hereinafter “instant request for examination”).

D. In addition, the Plaintiff filed a request for review on the disposition of non-approval with respect to the instant non-approval, and the Corporation dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on April 19, 201 after deliberation by the Industrial Accident Compensation Examination Committee. On July 21, 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff filed a request for review on July 21, 201 of the same year. On September 30 of the same year, the Industrial Accident Compensation Review Committee rendered a ruling to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the ground that the Plaintiff’s workplace was not a workplace subject to industrial accident compensation insurance (hereinafter “instant ruling”).

E. On February 17, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant request for examination pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act and Article 6(1)4 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Rules (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. In a case where an administrative agency does not have a legal obligation to respond to a passive disposition, such as accepting, rejecting, or rejecting an application based on a citizen’s legal or sound right within a reasonable period of time, even though the administrative agency does not have a legal obligation to respond to the request, the purpose of a lawsuit is to promptly respond to an administrative agency’s response by confirming illegality at the time of the judgment (the closing of oral pleadings of the fact-finding), and to remove a passive state of omission or non-sponsing the administrative agency’s response. Furthermore, in a case where an administrative agency makes an administrative agency take a disposition, etc., and objects again to the pertinent disposition, etc., by having the administrative agency go through a binding force of the judgment, the administrative agency ultimately seeks to protect the rights and interests of the people by opposing the pertinent disposition, etc. Thus, if a situation of omission terminates by actively or indirectly disposing of the relevant application through the time of judgment before and after the filing of the lawsuit, the relevant lawsuit shall lose the benefit of lawsuit and thus, it cannot be exempt from its dismissal (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4758, Sept. 25,

B. On February 17, 2012, the Defendant decided to dismiss the instant request for review and notified the Plaintiff on the ground that “The instant decision constituted grounds for rejection under Article 46(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act and Article 6(1)4 of the Rules on the Examination of the Board of Audit and Inspection” was rendered on July 21, 201 with respect to the disposition of non-approval.

C. In the disposition of this case, the plaintiff did not observe the deadline for the request for examination under Article 46 subparag. 3 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, and even in the case where the request for examination against the Board of Audit and Inspection was filed earlier than the request for administrative appeal, it cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that there was an administrative appeal decision. The plaintiff did not go through the procedure for resolution of the audit committee under Article 12(1)10 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act

According to Article 46(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act and Article 6(1)4 of the Rules on Examination of the Board of Audit and Inspection, where a ruling is made under the Administrative Appeals Act and other Acts, it shall be dismissed by the Board of Audit and Inspection. According to Article 111(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, a ruling by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on a request for reexamination shall be deemed a ruling on administrative appeals in the application of Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act, it shall not be deemed that the above provision shall not be applicable solely on the ground that the plaintiff first applied for an examination against the Corporation or the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee (re-examination). In addition, according to Article 12(2) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Articles 6(1)4 and 7(1) and (2) of the Rules on Examination and Inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection, it shall be deemed that the defendant handled insignificant matters, such as rejection and withdrawal, and that the head of the Office of Audit and Inspection, etc. may not be decided within three months from the date of the above decision.

D. Therefore, since the defendant's disposition of this case against the request for review of this case before the closing of argument, the defendant's non-compliance with the request for review of this case has already been resolved, there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Kim Tae-hwan

Justices Kim Jin-jin

A person shall be appointed.