[1] Requirements for refusal by an administrative agency to become an administrative disposition subject to appeal

[2] Where a local government occupies another's land as a road without lawful compensation procedures, the case holding that the rejection of an owner's application for compensation is not an administrative disposition subject to appeal

[1] In order that an administrative agency's rejection of a citizen's petition becomes an administrative disposition which is the object of an appeal litigation, a citizen must have the right under laws or sound reasoning with which the citizen can demand the administrative agency to perform an administrative act in accordance with the petition. In addition, a disposition which is the object of an appeal litigation refers to an act under public law of an administrative agency, such as ordering the establishment of a right or the burden of an obligation with respect to a specific matter, or giving rise to other legal effects, which is directly related to the rights and obligations of the citizen. An act which does not directly cause legal change in the legal status of the other party or other interested parties, cannot be a disposition that is the object of an appeal litigation. Thus, even if an administrative agency refused a petition in accordance with the citizen's laws and regulations or sound reasoning, it does not affect the applicant's rights and obligations or legal relations, and thus, the declaration of refusal

[2] Where a local government implemented an urban planning project under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Urban Planning Act and without obtaining consent from the owner or lawful procedures for expropriation, and completed construction, and occupied and used it to cause damage to the owner, the case holding that the response cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, since it does not have a specific and direct influence on the existence or scope of the owner's right to claim compensation for damages, even if the local government responded to the request of the landowner for compensation for losses on the ground that

[1] Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Nu227 delivered on October 23, 1984 (Gong1984, 1858) 89Nu8101 delivered on September 28, 1990 (Gong1990, 2189) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu597 delivered on February 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1101), 92Nu8712 delivered on January 15, 1993 (Gong1993, 739, 739) 93Nu631 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1939, 31969, 197Da197969, 1969, 197Da1979896, May 196, 196)

Freeboard

The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Jeon Soo-chul, Counsel for defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu24410 delivered on March 27, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

The so-called rejection disposition that an administrative agency which received an application from a citizen does not accept the application and does not perform any act with the content of the formal requirements for the rejection of the application or with the purport that it does not perform any act with no reason, shall be subject to appeal litigation as a type of administrative disposition. In this case, for the purpose of becoming an administrative disposition, the citizen shall have the right to demand that the administrative agency perform an administrative act with respect to the application (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu27, Oct. 23, 1984; 89Nu8101, Sept. 28, 1990; 90Nu597, Feb. 26, 1991; 92Nu712, Jan. 15, 1993; 99Nu37, Oct. 26, 1996; 196Nu37, etc., which is subject to appeal litigation as an act of refusal by an administrative agency with respect to legal relations with the applicant, etc.

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, as to the plaintiff's application for compensation for damages on March 30, 1995 for the reason that the plaintiff suffered damages on the ground that he suffered damages on the ground that the plaintiff used the term "compensation for losses" in the above application for compensation for damages, since it constitutes a tort, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff is liable for damages under the civil law even if the plaintiff suffered damages on the ground that the plaintiff used the term "compensation for losses" in the above application for compensation for damages pursuant to the urban planning project implemented and publicly announced by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City announced on September 5, 1983 by the Central Institute of Education and Training of Saemaul Savings Depository, without the plaintiff's consent or legitimate expropriation procedure. The plaintiff's most of the land in this case was incorporated into the second line from the road after completion of packing construction around February 1984, and the plaintiff's right to compensation for damages should not be determined as a matter of course as to the existence and the scope of the administrative agency's right to compensation.

Thus, the plaintiff's response to the land of this case does not have any specific and direct influence on the existence or scope of the plaintiff's right to claim compensation due to the plaintiff's rejection of the plaintiff's request for compensation, so the above response cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is different, the rejection of the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiff seeking the revocation of the above response made by the defendant is justified in its conclusion, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)