1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. From 2006 to 2006, the Plaintiff was required to pay approximately KRW 63.1 billion to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s balance of the general account expenditure budget (special subsidies and resident accommodation project cost) in 2006.

B. On April 13, 2015, the Defendant sent a reply that the balance of the budget execution in the year 2006 to the Plaintiff is not executed after the settlement of accounts is completed, and that it cannot be paid to the individual (hereinafter “instant reply”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant reply, but the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling of rejection on May 26, 2015 on the ground that the instant reply does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to administrative appeal.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including each number), and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's response of this case which refused to pay is unlawful, although the amount of KRW 63.1 billion should be paid to himself/herself, such as the special subsidies in 2006.

As to this, the defendant does not have the right to seek payment of the balance of budget allocation to the defendant, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

B. If an administrative agency’s rejection of a citizen’s petition constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the administrative agency’s right to request an action must be the citizen. If an administrative agency does not accept a citizen’s petition without the basis of the right to request a citizen’s filing, the rejection does not affect the applicant’s right or legal interest, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal

(1) Article 11 (1) of the Act provides that “The Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the cases in which the relevant person is liable for damages or losses.” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du12489, Oct. 23, 2003; 2004Du11626, Apr.