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

A. On April 26, 2013, B filed a construction report for new construction of Class I neighborhood living facilities (retailing to three lots, such as a square meter of F forest land 659m2, on December 10, 2010, which was divided into three lots, such as a square meter of F forest land 659m2; hereinafter referred to as "D forest"), with the head of the Dong-gu, Ansan-si, the Plaintiff, the head of the Dong-gu, Ansan-si, the Plaintiff owned the building (hereinafter referred to as "the building report of this case"). On August 30, 2013, the head of Ansan-si, the head of the Gu of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, which received the building report of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the building report of this case").

B. On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the head of Ansan-si, a member-gu, stating that the building report was unlawful by connecting the said road owned by the Plaintiff without his/her consent, who is an interested party. The head of Ansan-si, the head of the Gu sent the Plaintiff to the effect that the said road was already designated as a road by the relocating owner, and that the said building report and the acceptance thereof are lawful.

C. On June 27, 2014, B filed an application for permission for change of a building report with the name of the member of Ansan-si, the location of the building and D forest connected to the building, and an application for change of the building report with the content that the building report was changed to the G bank 3753m2 (hereinafter referred to as “G bank”) located in Ansan-si, the ownership of the Republic of Korea. On September 18, 2014, B obtained the permission for change from the head of the Gu of Ansan-si (hereinafter referred to as “instant permission for change”).

D. On September 24, 2014, Oct. 14, 2014, and Oct. 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Ansan-si Office that the instant permission for change was unlawful since G bank was not a road under the Building Act. The head of Ansan-si’s members sent it to the effect that the said permission for change was lawful, since the connection road for building permission ought to be determined by the actual status, not the land category, but the relevant land category.

E. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination pursuant to Article 43 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act on the ground that “The Plaintiff did not take any particular corrective measure despite the illegality of the instant building report and the permission for modification.” On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that “the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a direct interested party with respect to the disposition or other act of the Plaintiff’s auditor at the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the request for examination exceeded the exclusion period.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, 9, and 10, the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

Article 46 (1) and (2) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act provides that "the Board of Audit and Inspection shall reject a request for examination where it fails to meet the requirements and procedures prescribed by Articles 43 and 44 and the Board of Audit and Inspection Regulations, or where it fails to submit a request for examination by any person other than an interested party, and where it is deemed that there is any ground for review counter, it shall be requested to the head of the relevant agency for correction or other necessary measures, and where it is deemed that there is no ground for request for examination, it shall be dismissed." Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection may request the Board of Audit and Inspection to examine the person who has an interest in the disposition or other acts concerning the duties of the auditor," Article 44 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and Article 44

However, in a case where the Board of Audit and Inspection makes a request for examination of an administrative disposition against a person subject to audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the Board of Audit and Inspection makes a request for examination of an administrative disposition against the person subject to audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection, and where the request for examination is dismissed or rejected by the Board of Audit and Inspection, an interested person may file an appeal against the original administrative disposition subject to such request for examination, and may not file an appeal against the Board of Audit and Inspection seeking the revocation of such request for examination or rejection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu265, Jun. 25, 195).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful to request the cancellation of the defendant's decision which rejected the plaintiff's request for examination, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Soo-chul

Judges Park Jong-young