Whether a request for examination under Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act constitutes the procedure of a prior trial under the Administrative Litigation Act (negative)

The examination request as referred to in Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act is merely the purport of having a person who has an interest in the administrative act of the person subject to the audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection to assist in the performance of duties and to improve and improve the operation of administration by having the Board of Audit and Inspection examine whether or not the said administrative act is lawful or not, and therefore, the above procedure for the examination request shall not be considered

Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Nu113 delivered on November 30, 1970, 78Nu22 delivered on February 28, 1978

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu767 delivered on December 24, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney:

1. It is justifiable that the court below held that the disposition of imposition of the basic fine for negligence, etc. for waterworks by the defendant against the plaintiff shall not be deemed grounds for invalidation, unless there is a significant and obvious defect in the disposition of imposition of the basic fine for negligence, etc. for waterworks against the plaintiff, and it constitutes a mere ground for revocation

2. In addition, when considering the provisions of Article 44 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act and Articles 5 through 7 of the Rules on Examination of the Board of Audit and Inspection, the purpose of this study is to assist in the Board of Audit and Inspection in performing its duties and to improve and improve the administrative operation by having a person interested in the administrative act of the person subject to audit and inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection examine the legitimacy or validity of the above administrative act against the Board of Audit and Inspection.

Therefore, the procedure of the above request for review cannot be deemed to fall under the pre-trial procedure of administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 70Nu113, Nov. 30, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 78Nu22, Feb. 28, 1978).

The judgment of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's conjunctive claim on the premise that the defect in the pre-trial procedure was not cured is justified. The argument is groundless.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)