1. In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively apparent that the defect is a serious violation of an essential part of the law and its purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law in determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, and at the same time, it should be reasonably examined about the specificity of the specific case itself.

(1) In a case where an administrative disposition was taken by an administrative agency by applying a certain provision of a law to a certain legal relationship or fact-finding, and there is room for dispute over the interpretation of a certain provision, even if an administrative disposition was taken by an administrative agency by erroneous interpretation, it cannot be said that the defect is evident, even if the administrative disposition was taken by mistake of the fact requiring the disposition, and thus, it cannot be said that the defect is evident. However, even though the legal reasoning clearly stated that the provision of a law cannot be applied to the legal relation or fact-finding, and thus, the administrative agency’s application of the above provision is grave and clear if there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of a certain provision, notwithstanding the absence of room for dispute over the interpretation.

(1) In light of the language and text of the statutory provisions, the administrative agency’s interpretation and construction without any reasonable ground, and as a result, it cannot be deemed that there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the legal principle as to whether the legal principle is clearly revealed if the administrative agency took the relevant disposition without satisfying the requirements for disposition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du27094 Decided May 16, 2014). 2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is the person who committed other acts.