Cases deemed impossible to be subject to an appeal litigation;

(a) An administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation;

(b)a decision of correction or rejection which the Board of Audit and Inspection notifies the agency concerned upon the request for review is not a disposition which is subject to appeal litigation;

Article 5 (2) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 43 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 44 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act

Gyeongnam-si and 16 others

Board of Audit

Seoul High Court Decision 66Gu313 delivered on February 16, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s attorney.

As an original administrative litigation is filed on the premise of dispute over specific rights and obligations, an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation shall be interpreted as an act under public law of an administrative agency, ordering the establishment of rights or obligations pursuant to laws and regulations regarding a specific matter, and imposing other legal effects on the rights and obligations of citizens, etc. Therefore, barring special circumstances, an act, etc. which does not directly cause legal changes directly in the legal status of the other party or other persons concerned, such as brokerage, solicitation, and notification, shall not be subject to appeal litigation.

According to Article 43 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, when the Board of Audit and Inspection requests an examination from an interested party in connection with the duties of the auditor, it shall examine the request and notify the head of the agency concerned of the decision. When the head of the agency concerned receives the notification under the provisions of the preceding Article, he shall take appropriate measures on the basis of the notification. According to Article 5 (2) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Rules, the Board of Audit and Inspection shall request the agency concerned for correction or other necessary measures, and if the Board of Audit and Inspection deems that there is no reason for the request for examination, it shall dismiss the request. The purpose of the above provision is that the Board of Audit and Inspection shall provide the person who has interest in the administrative disposition to the Board of Audit and Inspection with the opportunity and materials to examine the legitimacy or validity of the above administrative disposition, so it shall be interpreted that the Board of Audit and Inspection shall assist in the improvement of the administrative operation, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the person who received the request for examination from the interested party is subject to correction or correction of the administrative disposition.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong