Whether a state agency’s response to a petition is deemed a rejection disposition against the petition and seek its revocation (negative)

Whether or not a government agency accepting a petition shall accept the petition and take a specific measure shall belong to the discretion of the government agency, and even if a government agency gives notice of "civil petition reply" rejecting the petition, it does not affect the rights and obligations or legal relations of the petitioner, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition, and thus, it cannot be the object of administrative litigation. Therefore, a lawsuit seeking revocation by deeming the above reply as a rejection disposition against the petition is unlawful.

Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 209 Plaintiffs, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Do Governor of Gyeongnam-do

Busan High Court Decision 90Gu2918 delivered on April 10, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted the court below's decision to the effect that it was improper for the plaintiffs to use the above land as a new park site on August 19, 1986, including the contents of the establishment of Ulsan Metropolitan City Planning on the land of this case, and the partial change of the park building plan on April 23, 1987 and its notification, pursuant to Articles 13 and 10 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the defendant's decision to the effect that it was not erroneous by clearly stating urban planning on the topographical map indicating the land of this case and comparing the topographical map with the urban planning already determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation. Since it was improper for the plaintiffs who were the owners of this case to use the land of this case as a new park site on several occasions, the court below's decision to dismiss the appeal of this case, which did not affect the plaintiffs' rights and obligations on the land of this case, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's appeal of this case was unlawful.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)