[1] The case holding that even if a business report filed by a civil petitioner to operate an industrial laundry factory is subject to a request for prior review under Article 19 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, it cannot be viewed as a request for prior review because the business report, etc. is not received in accordance with the form and procedure of the request for prior review under the same Act, and it cannot be viewed as a notification of the result of prior review under the same Act since it was not prepared in the name of the head of the competent Gu even after

[2] The case holding that the local government to which the above public officials, etc. belong is liable to compensate for the damages on the ground that the civil petitioners, etc., who reported to the head of the competent office, did not properly grasp the contents of the relevant public notice that limits the location of the industrial washing factory in the relevant site and prepared and delivered a written deliberation on civil petition treatment without properly grasping the contents of the public notice that limits the location of the industrial washing factory

[1] The case holding that in a case where a civil petitioner who reported to the head of the competent office to operate an industrial washing plant, received a comprehensive deliberation report on the business of one-time visit processing of civil petitions with the purport that "shall obtain permission for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities prior to the installation of facilities" from a public official of the competent office (hereinafter "deliberation report on civil petition treatment"), and applied for permission to install wastewater discharge facilities after leasing land and a building on the ground that the location of a boiler and drainage pipe necessary for wastewater discharge facilities is limited on the relevant site by the head of the competent office, but the non-permission disposition was made by the head of the competent office on the ground that the public official intentionally or negligently while performing his/her duties in violation of Article 19 (3) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, refused the civil petitioner's application for prior review on the ground that he/she did not know at the time of notification in violation of Article 19 (3) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, the above business report constitutes civil petition and complex civil petition as stipulated in Article 2 subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the same Act, and it cannot be viewed that the head of the competent office did not accept the prior review request.

[2] The case holding that the local government to which the above public official, etc. belongs is liable to compensate for damages on the ground that the civil petitioner, who made a report to the head of the competent office to operate an industrial washing factory, has paid funds for the lease of the land and the ground buildings necessary for the construction of industrial washing factory, the installation of the boiler and drainage pipe for wastewater discharge facilities, the purchase of equipment and office fixtures, etc. with the civil petitioner's trust of the stated contents, but did not recover the input costs due to the disposition of the non-permission of the installation of wastewater discharge facilities by the head of the competent office

[1] Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 2 subparag. 2, subparag. 3, Articles 9, and 19 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, Article 8(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Affairs Management Act / [2] Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 1, subparag. 1, 2, and 24(1) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, Article 36(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Affairs Treatment Act

C. Co., Ltd. and (Attorney Cho Jong-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Dahap15728 Decided November 10, 2009

April 27, 2010

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 5% interest per annum from January 17, 2009 to June 1, 2010, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The total costs of a lawsuit shall be three-minutes, and such two-minutes shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant respectively.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 165,378,865 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the pronouncement of this judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A) On September 10, 2008, Nonparty 1, an employee of the Plaintiff Company, submitted to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, the Defendant, a business report stating that the Plaintiff would engage in laundry business with the size of 791.75 square meters from the 454-2 (hereinafter “instant land”), five industrial washing machines (2,100 kilograms, 2, 50 kilograms), six industrial drying machines (10 kilograms), six industrial drying machines (10 kilograms), and 110 cubic meters), using water used as 30 cubic meters per day, with the volume of water used as 30 cubic meters at the 5th square meters.

B) As to the above, Nonparty 2’s public official belonging to the Defendant’s wife Nonparty 1 issued a one-time comprehensive review report on civil petition processing practice (hereinafter “civil petition review report”) to Nonparty 1. The above review report contains the following: (a) the National Land Utilization Planning Act, the Building-Related Act, and the Sewerage Act provide that “no promotion exists”; and (b) the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act requires the permission for installation of wastewater discharge facilities prior to the installation of the facility; and (c) the public official in charge of the relevant department’s review and signature.”

C) The Plaintiff leased the instant land and the instant ground buildings from Lart Co., Ltd. in order to operate an industrial washing factory in accordance with the written deliberation on civil petition treatment review, and installed boilers and drainage conduits necessary for wastewater discharge facilities, and purchased equipment, furnitures, etc.

D) Then, on November 19, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities with the head of the Si/Gu having jurisdiction over the Defendant, and on November 28, 2008, the head of the wife rejected the installation of wastewater discharge facilities on the ground that “the instant land is subject to the permissible city urban management plan (Class 1 district unit plan of the Prevention Zone in the relevant site) as the area of the permissible city management plan (Class 1 district unit plan of the prevention district), which is located within the permissible time zone under the Notification of the Young-si Urban Management Plan (O. 22, 2008),”

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Evidence No. 2 through 4, Evidence No. 5-1 through 13, Evidence No. 6-1 through 57, Evidence No. 10, 11, Evidence No. 2, each of the statements or images No. 2, the testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings by Non-Party No. 2 as well as the witness of the first instance trial and the trial court

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The business report submitted by the Plaintiff is a civil petition and complex civil petition under Article 2 subparags. 2 and 3 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, which are subject to the prior review request under Article 19 of the same Act. The written review of civil petition treatment of this case was written with an opinion on the civil petition treatment, and the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 also recognized it as a result of the prior review request. Thus, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu should be deemed to notify the Plaintiff of the result of the prior review on the condition that the permission for installation of wastewater discharge facilities was obtained. However, with respect to the Plaintiff’s application for permission for installation of wastewater discharge facilities, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu has notified the Plaintiff of the result of the prior review on the ground that the industrial washing factory was limited to the site and the wastewater discharge facilities were not installed. The Plaintiff refused the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that it did not indicate at the time of the prior review report in violation of Article 19(3) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff violated the above prior review report’s duty to compensate the Plaintiff for damages.

In addition, even in the case of the public notice that was enforced prior to the notification No. 2008-356, it is impossible to build an industrial washing factory on the land of this case. Although public officials belonging to the defendant were aware of the contents of the public notice and processed civil petitions, the defendant issued a civil petition review report as if the plaintiff could engage in industrial washing business if the plaintiff is equipped with wastewater discharge facilities, and the plaintiff suffers loss equivalent to the appraised value as seen above by making the preparation for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities in trust. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above loss.

B. Relevant statutes

Civil Petitions Treatment Act

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to protect the rights and interests of the people by providing for basic matters concerning the treatment of civil petitions and by promoting the fair treatment of civil petitions and the rational improvement of the civil petition administrative system.

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. The term "civil petitioner" means an individual, corporation or organization that requests an administrative agency to take a disposition or do any other specific act;

2. The term "civil petition-related affairs" means affairs concerning a request by a civil petitioner to an administrative agency for a specific act, such as disposition, (hereinafter referred to as "civil petition-related matters").

3. The term "combined civil petition" means a civil petition handled through permission, authorization, approval, recommendation, consultation, confirmation, etc. of multiple related agencies (including organizations, associations, etc. related to the civil petition; hereinafter the same shall apply) or related agencies pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes, directives, established rules, public notice, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "related Acts and subordinate statutes, etc.") to realize the purpose of a single civil

Article 9 (Receipt of Civil Petitions)

(1) Upon receipt of a civil petition, the head of an administrative agency shall not withhold or refuse receipt thereof and shall not unfairly return the received civil petition documents, except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts and subordinate statutes.

Article 19 (Requests for Preliminary Review)

(1) In cases of a civil petition that requires large-scale economic costs, a civil petitioner may request a preliminary examination in summary documents to the head of an administrative agency before submitting civil petition documents regularly.

(2) Where a civil petition for which an advance examination is requested pursuant to paragraph (1) is subject to consultation with another administrative agency, the head of the administrative agency shall consult with the head of the administrative agency in advance.

(3) The head of an administrative agency shall notify a civil petitioner of the result of prior examination, and shall not process a civil petition by rejecting other reasons not publicly notified when the result of prior examination is notified, except where it is impossible to implement it due to any cause attributable to the civil petitioner, force majeure or other special circumstances.

Article 24 (Implementation of One-time Visit Civil Petition Handling System)

(1) In handling civil petition affairs, the head of an administrative agency shall ensure that a public official in charge directly conducts the one-time visit civil petition handling system by having the public official in charge conduct all procedures related to the confirmation of materials inside the administrative agency and the cooperation with related agencies and departments in order to prevent civil petitioners from visiting the administrative agency again for unnecessary reasons.

(2) The head of an administrative agency shall establish a counseling counter for one-time visit civil petition treatment in order to provide guidance and counseling convenience on the one-time visit civil petition treatment pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1).

(3) The one-time visit civil petition handling system pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be implemented in accordance with the following procedures:

1. Operation of a counseling counter for one-time visit civil petition affairs;

2. Designation and operation of civil petition guardians;

3. The operation of a committee to deliberate on complex civil petitions;

4. Re-deliberation by a committee established for deliberation, coordination, etc. of civil petitions;

5. Final decisions of the head of an administrative agency;

Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act

Article 8 (Receipt of Civil Petitions)

(1) A civil petition shall be received by a civil-petition office (including an electronic civil petition counter; hereinafter the same shall apply): Provided, That where no civil-petition office is established, it shall be received by a department in charge of receipt and delivery of documents (hereinafter referred to as "department in charge of documents") or the competent department processing civil petitions (hereinafter referred to as "competent processing department").

(2) When a civil petition is received by a civil-petition office, department in charge of documents or competent processing department (hereinafter referred to as "civil-petition office, etc.") pursuant to paragraph (1), the civil-petition office shall record it in the civil-petition handling department in the order thereof and issue a certificate of receipt to the applicant: Provided, That in cases falling under any subparagraph of Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedures

Article 36 (Establishment, Operation, etc. of Comprehensive Deliberative Council)

(1) In order to deliberate on complex civil petitions pursuant to Article 24 (3) 3 of the Act, the head of an administrative agency shall establish and operate a working-level comprehensive deliberation council with the head of the department in charge of processing as the chairperson under his/her jurisdiction and the working-level person of the relevant agency or department as its members. In such cases, the name of the working-level comprehensive deliberation council may

Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedures Act

Article 9 (Receipt)

"Cases prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the proviso to Article 17 (4) of the Act means cases of applications falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Filing an application orally, by mail, or through an information and communications network;

2. Application whose processing period is “Immediate”.

3. Application for a document substituting a receipt of receipt;

Regulations on the Handling of Civil Petitions in Permitted-si (Ordinance No. 244 of December 29, 2006)

Article 15 (Request for Preliminary Review) The request for prior review under Article 19 of the Act shall be designated and implemented as the business subject to each of the following subparagraphs in consultation with the civil petition administrative officer:

1. Permission to establish and operate youth training facilities;

2. Approval of factory construction;

Notification of Permitted-si 2008-292 ( August 29, 2008)

Ⅱ. Report on the determination of the urban management planning concerning the Class I district unit planning for the prevention district;

2. Determination of an urban management plan concerning Class 1 district unit planning;

B. The part concerning demarcated land, buildings, etc.

(i)reports of determination of an urban management planning concerning the scale and creation of furnitures and lots;

○ Quasi-residential land

454-2 2,292㎡-dong, Chungcheongnam-si

(c) Other records of the determination of urban management planning concerning the matters.

○ Use Plan

Non-permission purpose: Warehouse facilities, factories, storage and treatment facilities for dangerous goods

Notification of Yong-si, 2008-356 ( October 22, 2008)

Ⅱ. Report on the determination of the urban management planning concerning the Class I district unit planning for the prevention district;

2. Determination of an urban management plan concerning Class 1 district unit planning;

B. The part concerning demarcated land, buildings, etc.

(i)reports of determination of an urban management planning concerning the scale and creation of furnitures and lots;

○ Quasi-residential land

The area of 454-2,291 square meters (the correction of an error in entry area) shall be made in Yongsan-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City.

(c) Other records of the determination of urban management planning concerning the matters.

○ Use Plan

Non-permission use: Factories, warehouse facilities, storage and treatment facilities for hazardous materials, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 6-1 and 2

C. Determination

(1) Determination of liability based on a prior request for review and notice of result

With respect to a request for prior review and notification of the result thereof, in the case of a civil petition which requires large-scale economic costs, a civil petitioner may request a preliminary review with a summary document before he/she submits a civil petition document to the head of the administrative agency (Article 19(1)), and the head of the administrative agency shall notify the civil petitioner of the result of the prior review (Article 19(3)), and the regulation on the processing of civil petition in the Permitted City is designated as the subject of a prior review under Article 19 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (Article 15(2)).

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the health room, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the testimony of non-party Nos. 1 through 5 of the first instance trial and the first instance trial witness No. 2 of the party concerned, the fact that Non-party No. 1, an employee of the plaintiff company, submitted to non-party No. 2, who is a public official belonging to the wife population office of the defendant on September 10, 2008 does not affix a receipt seal on the business report, business facilities, and the outline of equipment, and did not receive it in accordance with the form and procedure as a prior request for review under the Civil Petitions Treatment Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The civil petition review report issued to the non-party No. 1 is not a document registered as a public document

Thus, even if the business report submitted by the plaintiff is subject to a prior review request under Article 19 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act and Article 15 subparagraph 2 of the same Act as civil petition and complex civil petition under Article 2 subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the same Decree, the above business report, etc. is not received in accordance with the form and procedure of the request for prior review under the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, and it is not difficult to regard it as a request for prior review, and it is not made in the name of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and it cannot be viewed as a notification of the result of prior review under the Civil Petitions Treatment Act because the written request for prior review is not made in the name of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and it is merely a statement of opinion of the working person, not a written request for prior review ( even if the public official belonging to the Si/Gun

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without examining further.

(2) Determination on the assertion of liability arising from the processing of civil petition affairs

Article 2 subparag. 1, 2, and 3 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act provides that the Act is enacted for the purpose of processing civil petition affairs and protecting the rights and interests of the people by prescribing basic matters concerning civil petition treatment, and that an individual, corporation, or organization requesting a disposition or other specific act against an administrative agency shall be a civil petitioner; civil petition affairs concerning a request by a civil petitioner for a specific act such as disposition against an administrative agency; and civil petition affairs handled through the permission, authorization, approval, recommendation, consultation, confirmation, etc. of a large number of relevant agencies or relevant departments pursuant to statutes, etc. to realize the purpose of one civil petition (Article 2 subparag. 1, 2, and 3). Meanwhile, the head of an administrative agency shall establish a one-time visit civil petition treatment system to ensure that the civil petitioner does not visit the administrative agency again due to unnecessary reasons by establishing a one-time visit civil petition treatment system (Article 24(1)); the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act provides that a comprehensive deliberation committee shall be established and operated in relation to complex civil petitions (Article 36(1).

In light of the above provisions and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the facts acknowledged earlier, a business report submitted by the Plaintiff may be deemed civil petitions and complex civil petitions prescribed in Article 2 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, which shall be handled through consultation or confirmation by at least a number of relevant departments. Nonparty 2, who is a public official of the Si Population Office, as to the Plaintiff’s business report, is an act of performing duties in the form of one-time visit civil petition treatment, following a comprehensive deliberation procedure by the public official in charge of complex civil petitions according to complex civil petitions.

Furthermore, according to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and factual relations as seen earlier, even if the review report on civil petition treatment was issued to the plaintiff's side on September 10, 2008, it is based on the notification No. 2008-292 ( August 29, 2008), the land in this case was a quasi-residential area under the urban management plan in which the construction of a factory, etc. is impossible. The public official belonging to the defendant Si stated the deliberation opinion in violation of the notification without verifying the relevant public notice, and accordingly, the civil petition treatment review report was prepared and issued on the condition that it is possible to install an industrial washing factory on the land in this case, on the premise that the construction of an industrial washing factory is possible.

Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was bound to believe that if only wastewater discharge facilities are installed on the land of this case in accordance with the contents of the comprehensive working-level deliberation signed by the public officials in charge of the defendant's office, it would be possible to establish and operate an industrial laundry factory, and such a trust of the plaintiff would lead to the formation of the plaintiff's trust. The public officials in charge of the defendant's office did not grasp the contents of the relevant public notice and did not prepare and deliver a comprehensive working-level deliberation report on erroneous matters and caused

Thus, the defendant Si has a duty to compensate for the damages incurred by the plaintiff due to a tort committed by public officials belonging to the Si, that is, the plaintiff's use of funds for the lease of the land and the ground buildings necessary for the construction of an industrial washing factory by trusting the details in the civil petition treatment review report, installation of boiler and drainage pipe for wastewater discharge facilities, purchase of equipment and office equipment, etc., but the waste discharge facilities of the head of the Si, which are the wife, are not recovered due to

(3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(A) argument about the nature of documents to be submitted and a civil petition review document

The defendant asserts that the business report submitted by the plaintiff is not a document received in a fixed manner, such as no receipt certificate, and that the working-level staff belonging to the defendant Si only complies with the consultation in order to provide convenience to the plaintiff who is a civil petitioner, or that the written civil petition review of this case is a mail.

As seen earlier, the Civil Petitions Treatment Act provides that the receipt of a civil petition shall not be deferred or refused, except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts and subordinate statutes (Article 9(1)). The Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a civil petition shall be received from a civil petition office to be recorded in the civil petition processing book, and a receipt shall be issued to the applicant, unless it provides a document in lieu of an oral or postal application or a receipt immediately. (Article 8(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedures Act and Article 9 subparag. 1 through 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedures Act, even if a public official in charge of civil petition processing received a civil petition in violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and omitted the procedures such as the issuance of a civil petition processing book or receipt certificate, it cannot be deemed that there was no civil petition by reason of such circumstances, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the civil petition is merely a mere statement of the details and details of the civil petition, or a statement of convenience of the defendant in light of the content and contents of the civil petition.

(B) Claims relating to the “industrial washing business”

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff merely stated the business report as laundry business and did not enter it as "industrial laundry business", and that there was no error in the civil petition treatment review report.

However, according to the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiff clearly stated that he will operate a washing business with the area of 791.75 square meters in the land of this case and the quantity of water used at 30 cubic meters per day, with the equipment of five industrial washing machines and six industrial drying machines and wastewater discharge facilities scheduled to be installed within the five kinds of facilities within the five kinds of facilities. In light of the size of laundry business, equipment status, facilities, etc., the public official belonging to the defendant Si could sufficiently have known that if he had paid ordinary attention, the business that the plaintiff intends to run in the land of this case is industrial washing business. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(C) Plaintiff’s assertion of violation

The defendant asserts that the damage suffered by the plaintiff is not attributable to the illegal act, such as the installation of wastewater discharge facilities before obtaining permission for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities.

However, the permission for business is merely a cancellation of the general prohibition and the permission for business is required to grant permission unless there are special circumstances. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the plaintiff appears to have performed preparatory activities for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities in order to operate the industrial laundry factory in the land in this case. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff had completed the installation of wastewater discharge facilities without permission or conducted the wastewater discharge or laundry factory business. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Damages;

The State or a local government shall be liable for damages sustained by a victim due to a cause attributable to the public official's performance of duties within the extent that the proximate causal relation is acknowledged, and the determination of the proximate causal relation shall comprehensively consider not only the probability of the occurrence of the general result, but also the circumstances after the act foreseeable from the purpose or function of the official.

According to Gap evidence 6-1 to 57, the plaintiff received conditional permission such as the contents of the civil petition treatment review, and leased a factory located on the land of this case and paid 182,639,375 won in total, including 165,378,865 won in the purchase cost of the building construction cost, 70,312,00 won in the purchase cost of the equipment, 10,124,543 won in the purchase cost of the office fixtures, 71,920 won in the purchase cost of the equipment, and 71,031,920 won in the incidental expenses. The loss from which the remaining value is deducted can be acknowledged as constituting 165,378,865. Since each of the above disbursement costs are considered to have a proximate causal relation with the tort committed by public officials belonging to the defendant in light of the details and the timing of disbursement, the defendant is liable to compensate the above loss to the plaintiff.

B. Limitation on liability

However, it is not an official document prepared in the name of the head of the Gu or notification of the result of the request for prior examination under the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, which is a critical basis for the formation of the plaintiff's trust. On the civil petition treatment review report, the plaintiff was conditioned to obtain permission for installation of wastewater discharge facilities in order to operate the industrial washing factory in the land of this case, and thus the plaintiff is also required to do so before obtaining the permission. However, even though it is difficult to say that the plaintiff was not negligent in the occurrence or expansion of damages, it is reasonable to assume that the scope of the defendant's liability is 30% of the total amount of damages, considering the above negligence of the plaintiff.

C. Sub-committee

따라서 피고는 원고에게 손해배상금 50,000,000원(≒165,378,865원×30%) 및 이에 대하여 원고가 구하는 바에 따라 이 사건 소장부본 송달 다음날인 2009. 1. 17.부터 이 판결 선고일인 2010. 6. 1.까지는 민법에 정한 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법에 정한 연 20%의 각 비율에 의한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the plaintiff's appeal shall be partially accepted, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount accepted in the trial of the court of first instance shall be revoked, the payment of the above amount shall be ordered against the defendant, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff shall be dismissed as it is without merit

Judges Choi Sung-won (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)