A. Method of appeal by the previous defendant against the defendant's decision of permission for correction

(b) Where a ruling dismissing a request for retrial against a disposition made by the original disposition office exists, subject to administrative litigation;

A. Since the previous defendant cannot file an objection against the decision of permission to correct the defendant, the previous defendant's appeal against the above decision shall be deemed to be a special appeal.

(b)where a disposition by the original disposition office is made and a ruling dismissing the request for review is made that the disposition is justified, a disposition that is subject to an administrative litigation shall, in principle, be a disposition by the original disposition office, and administrative litigation against the ruling dismissing the above request for review shall be the subject, procedure, form or content inherent in the ruling itself;

Articles 8, 14, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu314 delivered on January 24, 1989 (Gong1989, 316), 93Nu5673 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2642), 93Nu17874 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1024)

The head of the Seoul Northern District Office of Education

Seoul High Court Order 93Gu4887 dated June 24, 1993

The order of the court below is reversed. The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In accordance with Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the court below decided to allow the defendant to correct the defendant in this case as a Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee by the Ministry of Education upon the plaintiff's application. Since the previous defendant cannot file an objection with regard to the decision of permission to correct the defendant, the appeal in this case against the above decision shall be deemed to be a special appeal.

According to the records, the Plaintiff, a teacher of a public middle school, filed a lawsuit in this case seeking the cancellation of the transfer disposition against the Plaintiff by designating the head of the Seoul Northern District Office of Education as the Defendant, but the Ministry of Education Disciplinary Review Committee erroneously designated the Defendant as to the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination of the above transfer disposition, and the lower court applied for permission to rectify the Defendant to the lower court as the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee of the Ministry of Education on the ground that the above application is reasonable.

However, as in this case, the disposition of the original disposition office has been made and the decision dismissing the request for reexamination is justifiable, the disposition subject to administrative litigation is in principle made by the original disposition office, and the administrative litigation against the decision dismissing the above request for reexamination is limited to the case where there is an error of law in the form or contents of the original disposition itself. According to the records, it is clear that the plaintiff only claims the original disposition of the former Seoul Northern District Office of Education head of the Office of Education, and does not claim the illegality of the decision of the Ministry of Education Review Committee itself.

Thus, although the plaintiff could not be deemed to have mistakenly designated the defendant to file the lawsuit of this case with the head of the Seoul Northern District Office of Education as the defendant, the court below permitted the defendant's correction as above. Thus, the order of the court below is erroneous in violating Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the decision, and therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)