[1] The elements required for an administrative agency’s refusal of a citizen’s affirmative filing of an application constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation

[2] In a case where a citizen files an application, whether the refusal by an administrative agency to reject the application is a disposition subject to an appeal litigation shall be determined specifically beyond whether the right to file an appeal exists and whether the application is accepted (negative)

[3] Where the owner of land, etc. in an area necessary for preserving the quality of water sources in the Geum River basin filed an application for purchase to sell the land, etc. with the State but the basin basin basin basin environmental office rejected such application, the case holding that the refusal of purchase constitutes an administrative disposition

[1] If a citizen’s refusal of an administrative agency’s refusal of an action following the citizen’s affirmative filing of an application constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the applicant’s filing of the application must be an exercise of public authority or an equivalent administrative action, and the refusal should cause a change in the applicant’s legal relationship, and the citizen should have the right to file an application under the relevant law or sound reasoning to demand that the citizen refrain from filing

[2] The existence of the right to apply as a premise for recognizing the disposition of rejection is determined abstractly by examining, in a specific case, who does not consider who is the applicant, whether the applicant has the right to apply or not, and the applicant does not mean the right to obtain the satisfactory result of accepting the application beyond the right to respond just to the application. Thus, in a case where a citizen files an application, if it is deemed that an individual's right to apply to the administrative action is recognized, the refusal shall be deemed the disposition that is the object of appeal, and in detail, whether the application can be accepted.

[3] In a case where the owner of land, etc. in the area necessary for preserving the quality of water sources in the Geum River basin filed an application for purchase to sell the land, etc. with the State, but the basin basin basin environmental office, etc. decided to refuse the purchase, the case holding that the refusal of purchase constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation as it is an exercise of public authority or an equivalent administrative action, in light of the fact that if the refusal of purchase is not deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, it

[1] Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 8 of the former Act on Water Management and Resident Support in the Geum River Basin (amended by Act No. 8806 of Dec. 27, 2007), Article 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Water Management and Resident Support in the Geum River Basin (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21187 of Dec. 24, 2008)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14036 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2125) Supreme Court Decision 2000Du9229 Delivered on November 22, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 225) Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1316 Delivered on October 11, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1771) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12460 Delivered on June 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2206)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Shin Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The basin basin basin basin environmental office

Daejeon High Court Decision 2007Nu861 Decided September 20, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

If an administrative agency’s refusal of an application constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation against a citizen’s affirmative filing of an application, the filing of the application must be an exercise of public authority or a similar administrative action, and the refusal must cause any change in the applicant’s legal relationship, and the citizen must have the right to file an application under the law or sound reasoning demanding that the applicant act be conducted (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu14036, Jul. 10, 1998; 2007Du1316, Oct. 11, 207; 2007Du1316, Oct. 16, 207). The existence of the right to file an application, which serves as a prerequisite for recognizing a disposition of rejection, is determined abstractly by examining the applicant’s recognition of such right in a specific case, without considering who is the applicant, and the applicant’s right to file an application does not mean the right to accept the application beyond the right to respond merely to the application. Thus, if the applicant is a citizen’s right to file an administrative appeal.

However, Article 8(1) and (2) of the former Act on Water Management and Resident Support in the Geum River Basin (amended by Act No. 8806, Dec. 27, 2007; hereinafter “the Act”), Article 9(1) through (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21187, Dec. 24, 2008); a person who intends to sell land, etc. in an area necessary for preserving the quality of water sources in the Geum River basin to the State among the Geum River basin shall submit a specific document to a basin environmental office, etc. for a purchase order; and a basin environmental office, etc. shall determine whether to purchase such land according to the purchase order; the purchase price shall be calculated in the same manner as the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects; the purchase system of land, etc. in Article 8 of the Act, etc. shall prevent the environmental infringement of land use of the water source and promote the improvement of the water quality of the water source area, and shall not be subject to appeal against land purchase order.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the lawsuit of this case since the defendant's refusal to purchase of this case was not an administrative disposition. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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 Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)