(a) Whether a written objection or a petition corresponds to the purport that the administrative disposition is revoked or modified;

B. Whether the procedure of the previous trial is subject to ex officio investigation

A. Since an administrative litigation is a document act that does not require a strict form, in case where a document was submitted from a person whose right or interest was infringed due to an illegal or unjust administrative disposition to the pertinent administrative agency or higher administrative agency to the purport that the cancellation or modification of the disposition is sought, regardless of the title, it shall be deemed as a source of lawsuit as provided in Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and an objection is also filed to the purport that the cancellation or modification of the administrative disposition is sought.

B. Whether an administrative litigation has undergone a prior trial procedure is a matter to be examined by the court ex officio.

A. Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 5 of the Litigation Act, Article 9 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu210 delivered on October 12, 1982

Korean Ship Agency Repair Industry Cooperatives

Busan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

Daegu High Court Decision 82 Gu20 delivered on June 22, 1982

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, pursuant to Article 3 (1) and (2) of the Sub-Appellant Act, a plaintiff shall file a lawsuit within a peremptory period of one month from the date he becomes aware that an administrative disposition has been taken place. According to the evidence of the judgment, the plaintiff can be recognized that the plaintiff received the notice of payment of the public waters reclamation license fee of this case in September 24, 1981 and filed a lawsuit against 10.31 of the same year after the lapse of one month from such notification. Thus, the lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the above disposition was dismissed on the ground that the defects in the re-

However, since it is interpreted as a written act which does not require a strict form, in case where a person whose rights or interests have been infringed due to an illegal or unfair administrative disposition has been submitted to the relevant administrative agency or the superior administrative agency to the purport of seeking cancellation or modification of the disposition, regardless of the title, it shall be deemed as a source of lawsuit under Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, regardless of the title. According to the records, the plaintiff asserted in the court below on October 22, 1981 that in addition to the argument that the plaintiff submitted the president at the court below's decision of October 31, 1981, he raised an objection against the disposition that is sought cancellation or modification of the disposition, and it is apparent that it is within the peremptory period of one month as provided in Article 3 of the Sub-Appeal Act. Thus, if it is true and that the plaintiff raised an objection to the purport of cancellation or modification of the disposition that is sought for cancellation or modification, the above objection asserted by the plaintiff shall be deemed as a legitimate source of lawsuit in accordance with the above legal principles.

In the administrative litigation, the court shall investigate ex officio whether or not the previous trial procedure has been followed by the court, and the court below should have tried to examine whether or not the contents of the objection asserted by the plaintiff against the disposition administrative agency or its superior administrative agency sought revocation or modification of the disposition that is sought by the plaintiff in this case, and should have judged the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case thereafter. In this regard, the court below's decision to dismiss the lawsuit in this case for the reasons stated in its reasoning is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the lawsuit in this case, and thus, cannot avoid criticism that it committed an unlawful act in the exercise of right

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed on the ground that the appeal is justified, 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 judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)