(a) Whether a document submitted to the effect that the disposition is cancelled or modified against the agency is a source of lawsuit;

(b) The purport of a written petition that, if a structure is installed under the permission of the agency which has made it impossible to mine it, and that, if so, it well handles the problem, is changed;

(c) Time to deem that the disposition agency has been served at the time of disposition;

A. Since a source of lawsuit under the former Sub-Appeal Act (amended by Act No. 3755 of Dec. 15, 1984) is interpreted as a written act that does not require a strict form, if a person whose right or interest is infringed due to an illegal or unjust administrative disposition submits a document to the competent administrative agency for cancellation or modification of the disposition within the statutory period, such document shall be regarded as a source of lawsuit under Article 2 of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 3754 of Dec. 15, 1984), regardless of the title and period for submitting the indication.

B. A person who obtained permission from the agency for installation of a structure from the agency does not intend to take measures such as compensation for damages to occur in the future, but rather seek the cancellation or alteration of the disposition, as the purport of seeking the cancellation or alteration of the disposition is not to be deemed to be the purport that a person who obtained permission from the agency for installation of a structure is unable to mine the true mine with water because it was stored in the water, making it impossible for the applicant

C. Where the person to whom the written ruling was served is not clear, the cause of the lawsuit shall be deemed to have been served prior to the date of filing of the written ruling at the latest, but if there are no special circumstances as to the specific time, it shall be reasonable to view that it is a time close to the date of establishment of the ruling.

Article 2 of the Litigation Act, Article 2 of the former Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu125 delivered on April 24, 1984, 83Nu189 delivered on July 9, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Samju Engine Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu366 delivered on August 28, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal and the grounds of supplementary appeal by the Plaintiff’s agent within the scope of supplement.

With respect to No. 1:

In its reasoning explanation, the original judgment: (a) the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Defendant rendered a disposition to permit the installation of river structures as stated in the original judgment against the Defendant’s Intervenor; (b) around October 20, 1983, the Defendant’s Intervenor was stored in the water and submitted to the Defendant a petition (Evidence No. 2-1 of the Plaintiff’s above complaint) stating that it would be impossible for the Defendant to mine up to mine the water; (c) the Defendant would bring an objection against the Plaintiff’s complaint on March 23, 1984; and (d) if the damages were caused by the installation of the said river structure, it is impossible to determine whether the Plaintiff would incur damages, and (e) the Plaintiff would have filed an objection against the instant administrative disposition on the 19th anniversary of the date on which the Plaintiff’s complaint was filed, and (e) the Plaintiff’s complaint would not be deemed legitimate as an administrative disposition or alteration of the rights or interests arising from the illegal or unjust disposition of the said administrative agency, and thus, (e.g., the Plaintiff’s complaint may be deemed unlawful.

Since the court below is interpreted as a written act which does not require strict form under the Subsponsive Law (hereinafter referred to as the "subsponsive Law") repealed by Act No. 3755 of Dec. 15, 1984, since it is interpreted as a written act which does not require strict form, when a person whose rights or interests have been infringed due to an illegal or unfair administrative disposition submits to the administrative agency a written statement to the effect that the administrative agency seeks the cancellation or modification of the disposition within the statutory period, regardless of the institution which presented the title or representation, it shall be viewed as a plaintiff under Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Administrative Litigation Act") before the amendment by Act No. 3754 of Dec. 15, 1984 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu125, Apr. 24, 1984; 83Nu189, July 9, 1985).

However, as in the above original adjudication, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's establishment of a structure with the defendant's permission was stored and the plaintiff's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's secret mine was unable to mine the plaintiff's management with water, and the defendant's defendant's defendant's secret mining was submitted to the defendant for a good settlement of this issue, but it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's petition was filed because it did not regard it as the plaintiff's ground as the above, but merely sought appropriate measures such as compensation for the damage caused by the loss. If the contents of the above written petition are the same as the above recognition, it cannot

If so, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the form of a source of lawsuit under the former Act, or contradictory to the reasoning of the judgment below.

(b) On the second ground for appeal:

As set out above, the above petition submitted by the plaintiff constitutes a plaintiff under Article 2 of the former Costs of Lawsuit Act. Therefore, the defendant should send it to a superior administrative agency or return it to the plaintiff when the method is defective, and even if it did not reach this point, it is a simple authenticity that the plaintiff would have been able to receive compensation, such as the time of original adjudication, and the plaintiff would have continued to have been in progress unless there is a legitimate judgment on the above suit.

In the case of this case where there is no judgment on the lawful filing of the lawsuit, the filing of the lawsuit is not subject to the limitation of the period of release as stipulated in Article 5 (2) of the former Administrative Litigation Act. Therefore, the appeal litigation of this case brought on April 15, 1985 is also legitimate. Thus, in order to determine the legitimacy of the lawsuit, it is reasonable to consider that the above disposition of the defendant against the plaintiff is legitimate and that the plaintiff's lawsuit is a written ruling dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit as the contents that the plaintiff's plaintiff's lawsuit is groundless, and therefore, the appeal litigation of this case brought on April 15, 1985 can not be accepted. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal of this case which was brought on the above judgment of the court below as to the defendant's administrative disposition of this case can not be seen as being served at the latest 35 days prior to the date of the appeal of this case.

However, if it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed on April 15, 1985, and thus, if so, the appeal of this case is a lawsuit for which the period of release as prescribed in Article 5 (1) of the former Administrative Litigation Act has expired and which is an unlawful lawsuit, and thus, it should be dismissed clearly. Thus, even if there were errors as seen in the judgment of the first ground for appeal in the original judgment, even though the judgment of the court below dismissed the lawsuit of this case, the conclusion of the court below that dismissed the lawsuit of this case is justifiable, and the first and second points are all without merit.

2. The appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)