[외국의사면허증인정확인등][공1986.8.15.(782),1004]
Whether the existence of an administrative disposition in an administrative litigation is an ex officio matter
The existence of administrative disposition, which is the object of litigation in administrative litigation, shall be an ex officio investigation as a litigation requirement, and it shall not be an object of confession. Therefore, even if the parties do not dispute the existence, if there is doubt as to the existence of administrative disposition, it shall be clarified ex officio.
Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Supreme Court Decision 82Nu484 Delivered on December 27, 1983
Plaintiff
The Minister of Health and Welfare
Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu78 delivered on October 10, 1984
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The plaintiff's ground of appeal was examined ex officio before the judgment of the court below, and the decision of the court below has acquired the permission of only the country of origin when the plaintiff was removed from Japan in 1946. The plaintiff worked as a doctor in North Korea before June 25, 1946. The defendant's disposition rejecting the plaintiff's application of this case is justified, after having explained that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the defendant rejected the application of this case as of December 26, 1983, with the documents stipulated in November 15, 1983 in order to obtain the qualification for domestic company examination as a foreign company under the current Medical Service Act and the Enforcement Decree.
However, the existence of administrative disposition, which is the object of litigation in administrative litigation, shall be deemed to be an ex officio investigation as a litigation requirement, and it shall not be an object of confession, so even if the parties do not dispute the existence thereof, it shall be determined ex officio (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu484 delivered on December 27, 1983).
However, according to the third protocol of pleading of the court below in 54 of the record, the plaintiff filed an application for recognition of foreign certificate with the defendant on November 15, 1983, and the plaintiff filed an appeal against the above rejection disposition, and the defendant filed an appeal against the above rejection disposition on December 15, 1983. The court below's determination that the plaintiff did not seek revocation of the administrative disposition against the plaintiff's foreign certificate of the plaintiff on November 15, 1983 is correct because it is obvious that the plaintiff did not seek revocation of the administrative disposition against the plaintiff's foreign certificate of the plaintiff on December 26, 1983. The court below's determination that the plaintiff's rejection disposition of December 26, 1983 as the plaintiff's second rejection disposition did not affect the judgment of the court below on the plaintiff's second ground for appeal as the plaintiff's second rejection disposition's second rejection disposition of the plaintiff's second rejection disposition of the plaintiff's second rejection disposition of the plaintiff's second rejection disposition of the administrative disposition as the plaintiff's second rejection disposition.
Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)