The term "administrative disposition", which is the object of an appeal litigation, means an act of an administrative agency under public law, which directly causes a change in the legal status of the other party or other persons concerned, such as an act of ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations under Acts and subordinate statutes, or giving rise to other legal effects with respect to a specific matter, and an act, etc., which does not directly cause a change in the legal status of the other party or other persons concerned, such as actions, intermediation, solicitation, and de facto notification, within the administrative authority, cannot be subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu909, Nov. 21, 1995; 96Nu6202, Jul. 10,

In full view of the provisions of Article 26(1)7, Article 40(1)4, Article 51(1), and Article 54 subparag. 7 of the former Social Welfare Services Act (amended by Act No. 8691 of Dec. 14, 2007; hereinafter “former Social Welfare Services Act”), the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall guide and supervise persons who operate social welfare business with respect to their duties, and may order persons who operate social welfare business to submit a report or relevant documents concerning their duties, or have public officials under his/her jurisdiction enter the office or facility of the corporation to inspect or ask questions, and if they violate the order, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may directly order the improvement of social welfare facilities, suspension of business, replacement of the head of the facility, or closure of the facility, and the Minister of Health and Welfare may issue a corrective order to a social welfare corporation or cancel the permission for establishment, and may impose criminal punishment on persons who do not comply with the order.

According to the facts and records of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant conducted a special audit of social welfare facilities operated by the plaintiff jointly with the Ministry of Health and Welfare and Seoul Special Metropolitan City on November 2, 2006, and ordered the plaintiff to take prompt corrective measures on the intellectual matters such as notifying the plaintiff of the pointed out as a result of 112 special audit and order to recover money or goods used for any purpose other than the above mentioned project cost or purpose, and to report the result to November 13, 2006 along with related documents. Thus, the defendant ordered the person operating the social welfare business to report or submit related documents concerning the business or to submit a related documents, and there is no legal ground for ordering the person under his/her jurisdiction to take corrective measures on the ground that the above corrective order was made based on the defendant's general authority to direct and supervise the person operating the social welfare business.

However, according to the above facts, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to report the result of the above corrective order together with related documents, and the result of the corrective order is included in the order for report and related documents based on Article 51 (1) of the former Social Welfare Services Act. In such a case, unless corrective measures pursuant to the above corrective order are prior to the order for report and related documents, it is difficult for the plaintiff to implement the above order for report and related documents. Therefore, in order for the plaintiff to implement the above order for report and related documents, the corrective measures pursuant to the above corrective order for the above corrective order can be actually enforced. If the defendant's above order is not complied with, it may be ordered to take corrective measures or the permission for establishment of corporation may be cancelled if the order for improvement or business of social welfare facilities operated by the plaintiff is not complied with, or there is a risk of disadvantage such as replacement of the head of the facility or closure of the facility, and even based on the facts maintained by the court of first instance, the defendant requested the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City to take corrective measures against the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with the above corrective order.

Nevertheless, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which determined that the defendant's corrective order against the plaintiff is merely an administrative guidance, which is a non-power factual act of an administrative agency, and is not an object of administrative litigation, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the object of appeal litigation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)