(a) Whether the two or three-lane requests for the submission of data to a trade union are administrative dispositions, in cases where the administrative agencies have failed to comply with such requests, and whether the two or three-lane requests for the submission of data are made again;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the plaintiff's request for submission of the materials for revocation was the third request for submission of materials, and that there was an error in failing to exercise the right of explanation

A. Article 30 of the Trade Union Act provides that an administrative agency may, if deemed necessary, conduct an investigation by requiring the submission of accounting records and other related documents of a trade union, and Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the above-mentioned investigation may be conducted. Thus, the above-mentioned Act or the Enforcement Decree of the same Act does not impose an obligation to make the submission of documents several times in order to bring about the effectiveness of the order to submit documents, so even upon one request, the other party bears the obligation to submit documents. Therefore, if the second and third demands are repeated of the same contents, barring any other special circumstance, the previous request for submission shall be withdrawn and the other party shall not be required to submit a new request, but shall be deemed to have the meaning of a notice demanding the submission or extending the deadline for submission. In such a case, an independent administrative disposition shall not be made.

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, the case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the plaintiff's request for the submission of materials for revocation was the third submission of materials, and there was an error in failing to exercise the right

(a)Article 2(1)1 and Article 19(a) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 30 of the Trade Union Act; Article 9bis of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu5962 delivered on July 26, 1983 (Gong1983, 1357), 90Nu5962 delivered on January 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 878). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu10216 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 708), 91Nu5372 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong192, 1322), 91Nu798 delivered on April 10, 192 (Gong192, 1608)

Modern Labor Union

The head of the Changwon Regional Labor Office

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu319 delivered on September 3, 1993

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below ordered the plaintiff to submit to the court by November 26, 1992 the Trade Union Code and its enactment until October 10, 190 of a single-lane pursuant to Article 30 of the Trade Union Act and Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and ordered the plaintiff to submit all the revised documents and nine kinds of data, such as account books, etc., on October 26, 1992, but the plaintiff so asked the defendant on November 6 of the same year to express the grounds or reasons for requesting submission of data, and in fact, the defendant rejected the submission period as of December 1 of the same year by December 1 of the same year, 2000 until December 10 of the same year, but the defendant did not comply with the order, and the defendant again ordered the plaintiff to submit the same data within the three-lane period until December 10, 195 of the same year, but the plaintiff did not comply with the order to submit new data ex officio, and found the plaintiff's order to be unlawful.

2. Article 30 of the Trade Union Act provides that an administrative agency may, if deemed necessary, allow a trade union to submit and investigate its accounting status and other relevant documents, and Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for cases where an investigation may be conducted as above. Since the same Act or the Enforcement Decree thereof does not impose several obligations to make several requests to submit documents to ensure that the order to submit documents takes effect, the other party shall be obligated to submit documents even at the same time. Therefore, if the request for submission of the two and three additional demands are repeated for the same content, barring any special circumstance, the former request for submission shall be withdrawn and the other party shall not be required to submit a new request, and in such a case, it shall not be deemed an independent administrative disposition.

Therefore, the court below's decision that a request for submission of the first and third documents made by October 26, 1992 is not an administrative disposition which is subject to appeal litigation in this case, and that the second and third demands made by the court below shall be acceptable, and there shall be no errors of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to administrative disposition.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s decision that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is seeking revocation of the third submission of documents, not an administrative disposition, and that rejection thereof.

A. If the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case that the defendant received the submission of the same content in three times as above, and the correction thereof was made, even though the purport of the lawsuit is stated that the plaintiff seeks revocation of the submission of materials to the plaintiff on December 7, 1992, it would be intended to seek revocation of the administrative disposition imposing the obligation to submit materials on the plaintiff, and if there are other special circumstances, it would not be possible to think that the administrative disposition imposing the obligation to submit materials would be only the disposition imposing the obligation to submit materials, urgings or delays it, and it would not be sufficient to think that the third party's submission of materials, which is not the subject of an appeal litigation, is separately removed from it.

B. The existence of an administrative disposition, which is the object of an administrative litigation, in an administrative litigation, is a matter of ex officio investigation, and even if the parties are not dissatisfied with the existence thereof, it shall be viewed as ex officio if there is doubt as to the existence thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu653 delivered on July 8, 1986).

According to the records, the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the above 1 to 3 requests for submission of materials is deemed to result in the administrative appeal and lawsuit of this case only on the ground of violation of the Trade Union Act when the plaintiff was admitted to the Msan District Labor Office on December 28, 1992 (No. 7-1 to 3). The plaintiff's cause of a complaint submitted by the plaintiff only asserted that the above 1 to 3 requests were unlawful on the ground of the first disposition, and it can be known that there was no separate mentioning about 3 requests for submission of materials. In light of this, the plaintiff's purpose of the lawsuit is to seek cancellation of administrative disposition against the plaintiff which imposed the obligation to submit materials on the plaintiff. The plaintiff's request for submission of materials on December 7, 1992 is stated as the object of cancellation, and it cannot be said that it is clear that this is not related to the cancellation of the first request for submission of materials, but only 3rd request for cancellation of the first request for submission of materials, and the court below's decision is not clear to 97 19.

C. Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides for the court’s right to ask for a question and the right to ask for a question. As such, the right to ask for a question or the duty to ask for a question as an action to supplement the principle of pleading, which is contradictory to the party’s statement, or inconsistent with incomplete and unclear facts, or when there is any defect, etc., and the current Civil Procedure Act newly establishes Article 126(4) and strengthens the court’s duty to ask for a question and strengthens the court’s duty to ask for a question. Thus, the court’s rejection of the lawsuit of this case merely on the ground that the request for submission of materials as stated in the purport of the claim is not an administrative disposition without confirming the request for a question and without confirming that the court below is subject to the cancellation of a certain disposition cannot be deemed to have

4. According to the records, although the purport of the written adjudication on the administrative appeal that the plaintiff prepared in this case is the object of the third request, the request for the submission of 1,2, and 3 materials is also judged (No. 10-2) in the reason of the ruling (the evidence No. 10-2), and it can be viewed that the first request for the submission of 3 materials can be included in the first request for the above reasons, and even if it is viewed that it is the object of the third request for the submission of materials formally, it can be viewed that it is a "disposition related to the contents" under Article 18 (3) No. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act because there is a correlation between the first request for submission of materials and the reasons for the dispute, so long as the third request for the submission of materials has gone through an administrative appeal, it can be deemed that the administrative litigation can be instituted even if it did not go through a separate administrative appeal against the third request for the submission of materials. Therefore, the above error of the court below is affected by the result of this case.

Therefore, the issue is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)