2013Guhap1713 A disposition of revocation of revocation of exclusion from the selection of a person who received a prize

B

Minister of Security and Public Administration

July 18, 2013

September 26, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On October 11, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of exclusion from the selection of a winner A who had been against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. In order to select and award exemplary public officials with excellent creative civil petition policies and community service activities and personnel of D Union with excellent service activities from around 1997 in collaboration with the C press president, the Defendant has set up the A subject regulations every year and has inflicted injury on the A.

B. On March 29, 2012, the Defendant notified the head of the central administrative agency (the Minister of Employment and Labor, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, etc.) and the head of the metropolitan local government (the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor, the Do Governor, etc.) of the following contents:

In order to enhance the honor and status of the 16th A Prize Plan, which is jointly supervised by the Korean government and the C press, it is time for the state to find out and recommend a good public official who has outstanding service performance in the civil petition field, and has set an example to others in the construction work life, so that he/she can enhance the honor and status of the Ear institution.

C. On May 30, 2012, Jeonnam-do Governor recommended three public officials, including the Plaintiff, who worked in E viewing through a self-public deliberation on May 30, 2012, to the Defendant as a candidate for the 16th candidates A.

D. On June 14, 2012, the Defendant notified the head of the central administrative agency and the head of the metropolitan local government of the following contents as follows: “On-the-spot verification, etc. for confirmation of candidates A’ achievements.”

16. Giving notice as shown in the "Attachment of Notice and On-Site Confirmation Plan, such as Red Pest, etc. for the meritorious services of the candidate A (Recommendation)", the relevant agency (Recommendation and Affiliation) shall improve the fairness and honor of awards, and actively cooperate with the local verification team so that on-site verification can be carried out smoothly with the collection of public opinion through public notice on the Internet, in order to enhance the fairness and honor of awards.

E. On September 10, 2012, the Defendant, including the Plaintiff, notified the 13 public officials, including the Plaintiff, to be selected as the 16th winner of the A, under the title "the confirmation of the 16th winner of the A" to the head of central administrative agency and the head of a metropolitan local government on September 10, 2012."

F. On September 25, 2012, the Defendant received an application for a civil petition from the E viewing Public Official’s Dong to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff was disqualified for A, and thus, excluded from the winners. Accordingly, on September 26, 2012, the Defendant informed the Review Committee of the foregoing fact, and organized the Investigation Team and confirmed the fact by visiting the E-Viewing Party.

G. On October 10, 2012, the Defendant reported on the result of on-site verification to the Review Committee. On October 10, 2012, the Review Committee deliberated on and resolved to exclude the Plaintiff from the number of winners A on the ground that “any defect newly confirmed by the Plaintiff, such as blood alcohol concentration 0.233%, 0.248%), and work-free dysium (27 days), constitutes “any person who is not able to be selected as a winner,” among the exclusion requirements for A subject recommendation.”

H. On October 11, 2012, the Defendant made a notification of the following matters (hereinafter “instant notification”) under the title of “the result of review by the official review committee for the subject of A” to the Seoul Do Governor and the E Mayor.

From among those notified as winners A of the 16th Award, fact-finding shall be examined, and the results thereof shall be notified to the Public Review Committee of A as follows: The results of the examination shall be re-scheduled to the Public Review Committee of A, and the facts of facts and disciplinary actions shall be examined to prevent such a case in the future, and the period of implementation shall be reached. The results of the examination of E Viewing Urban Planning and Local Facility Grade 6 B (Plaintiff) as a result of the examination: The reasons for exclusion from non-conformity (excluding A) (excluding the reasons for exclusion from judgment): The reasons for exclusion from the Non-conformity (A) : Two times of drinking driving and the reasons for exclusion from the workplace; the person who is difficult to be selected as a "other person" among the requirements for recommendation.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of the evidence of Nos. 1 through 17 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

The plaintiff asserts that the notification of this case was unlawful on the ground that he had had a record of disciplinary action due to his previous conviction and his non-performance of work, which had been 10 years ago, except for the plaintiff who was already selected as a winner of the A, without any legal basis. The defendant asserts that the notification of this case does not constitute a disposition subject to appeal, etc., and therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In principle, an administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to an act under the public law of an administrative agency, that is directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or directly causing other legal effects with respect to a specific matter. Thus, an act, etc., which does not directly cause legal changes in the legal status of the other party or related persons, such as actions, intermediation, solicitation, and de facto notification, inside the administrative agency, cannot be subject to an appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6202, Jul. 10, 1998). Therefore, an internal act, interim disposition, or mutual action between the administrative agency, in principle, cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is the subject of an appeal litigation. However, even if an internal act or interim disposition of an administrative agency is directly related

As to the instant case, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Defendant merely notifies the Do governor and the E Mayor of the result of the review of the official commendation of the subject of A, which is merely an internal act among administrative agencies, and it is difficult to regard the Plaintiff as a disposition. (ii) The selection of the subject of A is not made in accordance with the government commendation Rules (Presidential Decree No. 1), which prescribes the matters concerning official commendation conducted by the government agencies, but it is difficult to regard the selection of the subject of A as an act of creation of rights under the laws and regulations. (iii) As such, there is no need to provide legal grounds for the cancellation of the selection of the subject of A, unless there are separate legal grounds concerning the selection of the winner of A, (iv) Article 7(1) of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the A subject of the recommendation, which is unlawful by the Defendant’s authority to the A’s recommendation and the A-specific of its authority.

3. Conclusion

The instant lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.

The presiding judge, Kim Jong-sik

Judges Cho Jin-jin

Judges Kim Gin-dong

1) Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Government Commendation Regulations provide for the types of commendation subject to this provision, and Articles 19 and 19-2 of the Government Commendation Regulations stipulate that an commendation under this provision shall be prepared and managed in a register and that a certificate of commendation may be issued at the request of the recipient of the commendation.

2) In full view of relevant provisions, such as Article 39-3 of the Local Public Officials Act, Article 38-4 of the Decree on the Appointment of Local Public Officials, it is reasonable to deem that the special promotion by the appointing authority is a discretionary act, and since the special promotion can be conducted only when there is a vacancy in the class to be promoted, the fact that the person A was awarded the award cannot be deemed to have the right

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.