Conditions of the administrative litigation institution

No administrative litigation shall be instituted unless the adjudication of a commissioner has been passed unless any special ground as prescribed in the proviso of Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act exists.

Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

king Chang-ho, Attorney Park Jong-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Han-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the Head of the Office of Government Administration

E. E. E. Departure

Seoul High Court Decision 52Da21 delivered on October 7, 1952

The original judgment shall be reversed, and the lawsuit on this case shall be dismissed.

All costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s grounds of appeal are erroneous in finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence. In other words, the Defendant’s statement No. 5 No. 1 and No. 2, which seems to conform to the Defendant’s answer, and each of the testimonys in this paragraph from Park Jong-chul, which appears to be consistent with the Defendant’s answer, stated that the Defendant’s testimonys No. 1 and No. 2, and each of the entries in No. 1 and No. 1-2, etc., of the above Park Jong-young, are hard to obtain in accordance with the whole purport of the party’s pleading, and that the contents of testimonys No. 1 and No. 1-2, etc., of the witness Kim Young-young, are not sufficient evidence to reverse the fact-finding of the exhibition, and that the Plaintiff’s testimonys and evidences are not sufficient to prove that the Plaintiff’s testimonys and evidences were presented for each of the reasons for the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s testimonys evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 4 are inconsistent with the evidence No.

With regard to the legality of this case, the administrative litigation for which a person whose right has been infringed by an administrative agency's unlawful disposition requested the cancellation or modification of the disposition is the premise for a lawsuit that cannot be brought without going through the original procedure for the disposition unless there is an exception to the proviso of Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act under Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act. According to the records of this case, the fact that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the administrative disposition against the plaintiff is not proved, and even if there is no proof and vindication of facts as to the proviso of Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, it is obvious that the main lawsuit is not dismissed in the records, and therefore, the original judgment which the court below neglected it and judged on the merits is illegal, and the appeal is ultimately justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 89, Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to Article 408 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 9

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)