Where an administrative agency argues that the remaining part of the imposition of a penalty surcharge after the imposition of a penalty surcharge by the administrative agency is illegal, the subject of an appeal shall be the case.

In a case where an administrative agency imposes a penalty surcharge on a person liable for payment and then reduces the amount of a penalty surcharge on the grounds of a defect in the imposition of a penalty surcharge, the imposition of a penalty surcharge shall affect the legal effect of the reduced penalty surcharge only on the part of the first imposition and separate imposition of a penalty surcharge, and its substance is not the first imposition of a penalty surcharge, but the alteration of the first imposition and the subsequent imposition of a penalty surcharge bring about a favorable result to the person liable for payment, thereby bringing about a partial revocation of the penalty surcharge. Therefore, the first imposition of a penalty surcharge does not become null and void in its entirety. In a case where an appeal is filed against the remaining portion of the first imposition of a penalty surcharge

Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu2416 delivered on January 12, 2006

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

If there is a defect in the disposition, the disposition agency which issued the disposition shall be able to cancel or alter it on its own without any other legal basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu664, Feb. 25, 1986; 2003Du4669, May 25, 2006). In imposing the penalty surcharge, where the administrative agency imposed the person liable for payment and then reduces the amount of the penalty surcharge on the grounds of the defect in the disposition, the disposition shall have legal effect on the reduced portion of the penalty surcharge, as it does not have legal effect on the reduced portion, and it does not have legal effect on the original disposition, but has legal effect on the reduced portion, as it does have legal effect on the changed portion of the penalty surcharge, and its substance is favorable to the person liable for payment as a partial cancellation of the penalty surcharge. In cases where it is asserted that the disposition of reduction was unlawful, the object of the appeal shall not be revoked by the initial disposition of reduction, and the remaining portion shall not be subject to an appeal litigation even if any special ground exists.

After compiling the admitted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its holding, and determined that the Plaintiff’s primary and conjunctive claims in this case are unlawful, on the grounds that there are no special circumstances to recognize a lawsuit seeking nullification or revocation of the reduction disposition itself, given that an appeal litigation on the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 14,369,00,000, which is the remainder of the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 17,820,000,000, which is the remainder of the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 14,369,000, which is the remainder of the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 17,00

In light of the above legal principles and records, such measures by the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject matter of a lawsuit in the partial reduction of penalty surcharge.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In a case where an administrative agency reduces the amount of penalty surcharges on the ground of the defect in the initial disposition of imposition, but the remaining part of the disposition of reduction is illegal, the issue of whether the appeal is the subject of ex officio investigation by the court and is not subject to the principle of protecting trust in the act of the administrative agency. Thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)