공무원위탁교육훈련비회수요구취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff, a local public official belonging to the Defendant, was retired from office on December 31, 2015, and was paid KRW 5,316,50 as education and training expenses by the Defendant pursuant to the Local Public Officials Education and Training Act, etc. while attending the Jeju University General Graduate School from around 2013 at the time of his/her employment.
On December 13, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to return the above amount already received, as it retired from the Plaintiff during the Plaintiff’s training (hereinafter “instant disposition”) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
A. The meaning of the Plaintiff’s purport of the claim is unclear. Since the Plaintiff’s application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on June 21, 2018 stated that “Although the Plaintiff raised several objections to the instant disposition, the Defendant, without correcting or cancelling the instant disposition, has consistently sought confirmation of illegality of omission,” the Defendant first interpreted and examined the application.
A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission may be instituted only by a person who has filed a petition for a disposition and has legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission. The response by an administrative agency seeking such a petition must pertaining to the disposition stipulated in Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, where a party fails to file a petition with an administrative agency for an administrative act, or even if a petition was filed, does not have any legal or logical right to require the administrative agency to perform such an administrative act, it cannot be deemed that there is no standing to sue or an illegal omission subject to an appeal litigation, and thus, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of the omission is unlawful.
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu7345 delivered on September 15, 1995). As to the instant case, the health unit and the Plaintiff have the duty to act to correct the instant disposition.