Whether it violates Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea to allow an administrative agency to file a lawsuit for performance of obligations against illegal or wrongful omission (negative)

Articles 3 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act provide for a lawsuit to confirm that the omission by an administrative agency is illegal, but does not provide for a lawsuit seeking an administrative agency to take a certain disposition against the omission of an administrative agency, and thus, it does not allow an administrative agency to demand a certain disposition against an illegal or unreasonable omission. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 23 of the Constitution guaranteeing the citizens’ property right.

Articles 3 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Article 23 of the Constitution)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu29592 delivered on July 16, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Judgment as to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiff (appointed party, the plaintiff's abbreviations later)

Articles 3 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act provide for a lawsuit to confirm that the omission by an administrative agency is illegal, but does not provide for a lawsuit seeking a certain disposition against the omission by an administrative agency, and thus does not allow a lawsuit claiming a certain disposition against an illegal or unreasonable omission by an administrative agency. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 23 of the Constitution guaranteeing the property right of the people, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The judgment of the court below that found the lawsuit of this case to be unlawful is not only an additional judgment, but also an additional judgment, and according to relevant evidence and records, the judgment of the court below's above recognition is justified, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law that did not properly conduct the deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit, on the ground that there is no reason for discussing.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.