Whether a reply given by the head of each administrative ministry, etc. to an inquiry about the interpretation of statutes under the jurisdiction of the general public can be subject to an appeal litigation.

Administrative litigation is filed on the premise of dispute over specific rights and obligations, and administrative litigation is an act under public law of an administrative agency, which is subject to administrative litigation, and is an act of directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as the establishment of rights and obligations with respect to a specific matter under laws and regulations and the occurrence of other legal effects. Thus, a reply given by the head of each administrative ministry, etc. on the interpretation of Acts and subordinate statutes under the jurisdiction of the general public is not bound by the court, and the response made by the head of each administrative ministry, etc. on the interpretation of statutes under the jurisdiction of the general public does not result in a direct change in

Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Nu23 Decided October 25, 1966, and 81Nu283 Decided February 22, 1983 (Gong1983,594) 83Nu485 Decided May 22, 1984 (Gong1984,141)

The Korea Medical Association of Korea (Law Firm East & Yang, Attorneys Yt-hoo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Minister of Health and Welfare

Korea Madice Association

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu16920 delivered on January 25, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Administrative litigation is an administrative disposition that is subject to administrative litigation, which is a premise of dispute over specific rights and duties, is an act under the public law of an administrative agency, which is an act under the public law and directly related to the rights and duties of the people. The head of each administrative ministry, etc., shall not be bound by the court, nor cause direct changes in the legal status of the other party or other related persons, and thus, it cannot be subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Nu283, Feb. 22, 1983; 83Nu485, May 22, 1984). According to the records, each of the instant public massage doctors' opinions on the interpretation of the statutes under the jurisdiction of the general public, which is the plaintiff's request for nullification of the rights and duties, and are not directly related to the rights and duties of the public, such as ordering them to take other legal effects. Accordingly, the defendant's reply to inquiries about the interpretation of the statutes under the jurisdiction of the general public, as well as the defendant's reply to the petitioner's opinion on the form and the petitioner's opinion.

In addition, the Defendant’s instant case’s argument that a herb doctor’s right is infringed as well as his/her business area, and that the act of scambling by a disqualified dysium causes a violation of national health due to the act of scambling by a dysium is related to the actual effect of the above time, and it cannot be a material to determine

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's reply of this case does not constitute an administrative disposition which is subject to an appeal litigation is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to administrative disposition or incomplete hearing as pointed out. The precedents cited in the theory of lawsuit are inappropriate. All the arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)