[1] Whether an administrative disposition by the other party becomes effective upon notification to the other party (affirmative in principle), and whether an administrative disposition by the other party becomes effective when the other party becomes aware of the content of the administrative disposition through another channel (negative)

[2] The meaning of "the date when the person becomes aware of the disposition, etc." as provided by Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act and "the date when the disposition, etc. is taken" as provided by Article 20 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act as the starting point of the period for filing a lawsuit seeking cancellation, and whether such a legal principle

[3] Legal nature of the system for a request for review to the Public Officials Pension Benefit Review Committee under the former Public Officials Pension Act (=special administrative appeal)

[1] Except as otherwise expressly provided, an administrative disposition with the other party shall become effective when it is notified to the other party pursuant to the general law regarding declaration of intention. If the other party's administrative disposition is not notified to the other party, it shall not be deemed that an administrative disposition becomes effective even if the other party becomes aware of the details of the administrative disposition

[2] The "date when the person becomes aware of the existence of a disposition, etc." under Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act as the starting point of the period for filing a lawsuit seeking revocation refers to the date when the person becomes aware of a valid administrative disposition, and the "date when a disposition, etc. is taken" under paragraph (2) of the same Article refers to the date when the administrative disposition becomes effective.

[3] According to Article 80 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15523, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter the same), a person who has an objection to a decision, etc. on benefits may file a request for an examination with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee within 180 days from the date the decision, etc. on benefits was made, and within 90 days from the date he/she becomes aware of such fact (paragraphs 1 and 2), and may not file an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act (Paragraph 4).

In full view of the legislative purport and period of the request for review against the Public Officials Pension Benefit Review Committee, the application of general administrative appeals under the Administrative Appeals Act, and the matters concerning the organization, operation and review procedure of the Public Officials Pension Benefit Review Committee under Articles 84 through 95-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 29181, Sept. 18, 2018) upon delegation of Article 80(3) of the former Public Officials Pension Act, the request for review against the Public Officials Pension Benefit Review Committee under the former Public Officials Pension Act constitutes a special administrative appeal procedure in lieu of general administrative appeals under the Administrative Appeals Act (Article 4(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act), i.e., a special administrative appeal procedure in lieu of general administrative appeals under the Administrative Appeals Act, because it is particularly necessary

[1] Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 20 (1) and (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 27 (1) and (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act / [3] Article 80 (1) (see current Article 87 (1)), (2) (see current Article 87 (2)), and (4) (see current Article 87 (3)), Article 4 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13908 Decided April 9, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 836), Supreme Court Decision 2014Du8254 Decided September 25, 2014 (Gong2014Ha, 2129), Supreme Court Decision 2015Du38856 Decided October 25, 2018 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 77Nu195 Decided November 22, 197 (Gong1978, 1053), Supreme Court Decision 98Du5118 Decided June 12, 198

Plaintiff

The Government Employees Pension Service

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Nu70501 decided April 3, 2019

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Administrative Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Relevant legal principles

A. Unless otherwise expressly provided, an administrative disposition that is the other party has an effect to be notified to the other party in accordance with the general law regarding expression of intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du38856, Oct. 25, 2018). If an administrative disposition that is the other party is not notified to the other party, it cannot be deemed that an administrative disposition becomes effective even if the other party becomes aware of the content of the administrative disposition through another channel (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13908, Apr. 9, 2004)

The "date when the person becomes aware of the existence of a disposition, etc." under Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act means the date when the person becomes aware of the existence of a valid administrative disposition, and the "date when a disposition, etc. takes place" under paragraph (2) of the same Article means the date when the administrative disposition takes effect. Such a legal principle also applies to the period of request for administrative appeal (see Supreme Court Decisions 77Nu195, Nov. 22, 197; 98Du5118, Jun. 12, 1998).

B. According to Article 80 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15523, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter the same), a person who has an objection to the decision, etc. on benefits may file a request for an examination with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee within 180 days from the date the decision, etc. on benefits was made, and within 90 days from the date he/she becomes aware of such fact (paragraphs 1 and 2), and may not file an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act (Paragraph 4).

In full view of the legislative intent and period of the request for review by the Public Officials Pension Benefit Review Committee, the exemption from the application of general administrative appeals under the Administrative Appeals Act, and the matters concerning the organization, operation, and review procedure of the Public Officials Pension Benefit Review Committee under Articles 84 through 95-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 29181, Sept. 18, 2018) upon delegation of Article 80(3) of the former Public Officials Pension Act, the request for review by the Public Officials Pension Benefit Review Committee under the former Public Officials Pension Act may be deemed to fall under a special administrative appeal procedure in lieu of general administrative appeals under the Administrative Appeals Act (Article 4(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act), i.e., a special administrative appeal procedure in lieu of general administrative appeals under the Administrative Appeals Act, because

C. According to Article 14 of the Administrative Procedures Act as a general law regarding the administrative procedure, service shall be made by means of mail, delivery, information and communications network use, etc., and it shall be made to the address, residence, place of business, office, or e-mail address (hereinafter “location, etc.”) of the person receiving the service (including his/her representative or agent; hereinafter the same shall apply) (Article 14). In such cases, service via an information and communications network shall be made only when the person receiving the service consents thereto. In such cases, the recipient of the service shall designate the e-mail address, etc. (Article 3), the address, etc. of the person receiving the service is not verifiable by ordinary means, or where the service is impossible, it shall be made public notice at least one of the Official Gazette, official bulletin, bulletin board

2. Case history

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the following circumstances are revealed.

A. On June 29, 2017, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s disability grade as class 5 No. 3 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and posted the Defendant’s Internet homepage around that time.

B. On August 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, and stated the “attached Form 30” column of the Enforcement Rule of the Administrative Appeals Act (attached Form 30) in the “date on which the Plaintiff becomes aware of the disposition” of the written request for administrative appeal.

C. On April 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request for review of the instant disposition with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee (hereinafter “instant request for review”).

D. On June 21, 2018, the Public Officials Pension Benefit Review Committee rendered a decision of rejection on the ground that the instant request for review was made after the lapse of “90 days from the date on which the decision on benefits was known” as the initial date of the request for review period under the latter part of Article 80(2) of the former Public Officials Pension Act.

E. On July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 3, 2018, within 90 days from the date of receiving the written decision of rejection.

3. Determination

A. Examining the foregoing facts in light of the provisions and legal principles of the relevant statutes as seen earlier, the following determination is possible.

(1) The instant disposition constitutes an administrative disposition with the other party. Since the former Public Officials Pension Act did not separately determine the method of notifying the decision on benefits under the same Act, the instant disposition may be deemed to take effect only by giving notice to the Plaintiff, who is the other party, by serving the notice as prescribed by Article 14 of the Administrative Procedures Act.

(2) According to the records, the Plaintiff became aware of the disposition that was posted by the Defendant by accessing the Defendant’s Internet homepage from the first instance trial to July 10, 2017, and only stated the date as “the date on which the Defendant became aware of the disposition” in the written request for administrative appeal, and asserted that the Defendant was unable to receive a written disposition from the Defendant. However, the Defendant’s posting of the decision on the instant disposition on the Internet homepage cannot be deemed to have been served as prescribed by Article 14 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and even if the Plaintiff confirmed the contents of the decision by accessing the Internet homepage, and the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that it became aware of the fact that the Defendant sent the written disposition to the address, residence, place of business, office, or office of the Plaintiff or its agent pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act. In addition, there is no assertion and certification as to the fact that the Defendant either used the information and communications network or publicly announced it in the Official Gazette, bulletin, bulletin, daily newspaper, or one or more of the daily newspapers.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to have become effective because it cannot be deemed that it was notified to the Plaintiff, the other party, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the period for filing a request for review under Article 80(2) of the former Public Officials Pension Act or the period for filing a suit seeking revocation under Article 20(1) and (2) of the Administrative Litigation

B. Nevertheless, on June 29, 2017, on which the decision on the instant disposition was made, the first instance court and the lower court held that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s request for review was filed after the lapse of the period from July 10, 2017 to 90 days from the date when the notice of decision was served by the Public Officials Benefit Review Committee or the date when the decision was rendered, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s request for review was based on “the date when the decision became known of the disposition” under Article 80(2) of the former Public Officials Pension Act, and that the instant request for review was filed after the lapse of the period from July 10, 2017, when the date when the decision was served by the Public Officials Benefit Review Committee or the date when the decision was rendered.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “requirements for taking effect of administrative dispositions against the other party,” thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed and the Supreme Court decides to render a self-determination, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. Pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 425 and 418 of the Civil Procedure Act, the case is remanded to the first instance court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)