The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. With respect to the first ground for appeal, Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that when an administrative agency imposes an obligation on a party or imposes a restriction on his/her rights and interests, the administrative agency shall notify the party concerned of the title of the disposition, name or title of the party concerned, address, facts causing the disposition, contents of the disposition, and legal basis thereof, the submission of his/her opinion to the party concerned, the processing method when the submission of opinion is not made, the name and address of the agency providing the submission of the opinion, the deadline for submission of the opinion, etc.

However, since a disposition of rejection of an application is not imposed on the parties unless there are special circumstances, it does not directly restrict the rights and interests of the parties, and thus, it does not constitute a "disposition that restricts the rights and interests of the parties". Therefore, it cannot be said that prior notice of the disposition or hearing of opinions is subject to prior notice of the disposition.

(2) The Plaintiff did not submit a prior notice or hearing of opinions on the Plaintiff’s claim for medical care benefit costs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du674, Nov. 28, 2003).

The court determined that the administrative procedure could not be deemed to have violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.