[유선방송사업허가거부처분취소등][공1992.9.15.(928),2569]
The purport of the institution of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission
The purpose of a lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission is to remove passive illegal state, which is called omission or non-compliance with an administrative agency's response promptly at the time of a judgment, by confirming the illegality of an administrative agency's response in a case where an administrative agency does not have a legal response obligation to respond to a request based on a citizen's legal or sound right within a reasonable period of time, such as accepting the request within a reasonable period of time, or dismissing or rejecting the request. Furthermore, when an administrative agency does not have a legal response obligation to respond to a request based on a citizen's legal or sound right, it is to have the administrative agency take a disposition, etc. by binding force of the judgment in question, and if an administrative
Article 36 of the Administrative Litigation Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others
Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu13426 delivered on June 25, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The purpose of a lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission is to remove the passive illegal state called omission or non-compliance with an administrative agency's response promptly by ascertaining the illegality of omission based on the time of the judgment in a case where the administrative agency does not have a legal response obligation to respond, such as accepting an application based on a citizen's legal or sound right within a reasonable period of time, or rejection or dismissal of the application (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4758, Sept. 25, 1990). Furthermore, when an administrative agency objects to the pertinent disposition, etc., it is to have the administrative agency take a disposition, etc. by binding force of the judgment, and if an objection is again raised, then ultimately protect the interest of the people (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu475
The court below is just in holding that the defendant's permission to permit the cable broadcasting business of this case against the defendant was unlawful, and the defendant did not make a decision to permit the business of this case more than 70 years after the 70-year processing period, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to cable broadcasting management law, such as the theory of lawsuit.
Even if a prudent review, which serves as the premise for the permission of this case, was conducted in accordance with the assertion of the novel theory, and even if the processing period was over, it would not be more than 70 days and more than 3 years, and it would not be reasonable to recognize the reasonableness thereof.
There is no reason to discuss this issue.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)