[부정당업자제재처분무효확인][공1985.3.15.(748),378]
Whether the limitation of participation in bidding by the representative of the Korea Electric Power Corporation or its subordinate power plant, etc. is an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation (negative)
The Korea Electric Power Corporation or the representative of the Seoul Power plant under the Korea Electric Power Corporation’s Act restricts the participation in tendering procedures conducted by the said Corporation or the representative of the said Seoul Power Plant is merely an act of notifying a person to not participate in tendering procedures conducted by the said Corporation, etc., and it is not an act of power of an administrative agency, its affiliated agency, or its delegated agency, and thus does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Hanyang General Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and one other
Korea Electric Power Corporation et al., Counsel for defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu1152 delivered on August 30, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.
The term "administrative disposition", which is the object of an administrative litigation, means an action under the public law that an administrative agency, its affiliated agency, or a public organization entrusted with its authority directly exercises public authority on the matters related to the rights and duties of the people, and even if such action is an act restricting the rights of the other party, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition unless it is an act of the administrative agency, its affiliated agency, or the public organization entrusted with its authority. The court below does not have any laws that stipulate it as a central administrative agency. Thus, it is clear that the defendant or the representative of the Seoul Telecommunication Power Plant does not fall under the "head of each central government agency" as provided in Article 70-18 of the Budget and Accounts Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act of the same Act. Since the defendant's action cannot be seen as an administrative disposition that restricts the plaintiff's qualification to participate in an administrative litigation, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition that the defendant's administrative disposition or its subordinate agency does not have any authority to notify the plaintiff's participation in the tendering procedure. Thus, the court's decision of this case cannot be justified.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)