Apex Law Firm, Attorneys Han Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant)

Gwangju Market (Law Firm Rodd, Attorney Seo Chang-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Guhap1663 Decided August 12, 2009

March 11, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The plaintiff's application for the approval of the housing construction project plan dated July 31, 2008 against the defendant and the rejection disposition as of November 25, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable, and therefore, it is cited as the reasons for the judgment of this case in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Additional determination

As the grounds for appeal of this case, the plaintiff asserts to the purport that the first instance court's objection of this case constitutes an administrative appeal, and thus, it is legitimate as the lawsuit of this case was filed within the period for filing a lawsuit.

However, the main text of Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “a revocation lawsuit shall be subject to a disposition, etc.” and the proviso provides that “in the case of a lawsuit seeking revocation of a ruling, it shall be limited to cases where the ruling itself has an error of law inherent in the ruling itself.” This is understood that the Administrative Litigation Act exceptionally recognizes administrative litigation against

The term “adjudication” refers to not only the formal meaning of the Administrative Appeals Act, but also all administrative appeals conducted by administrative agencies under each individual law, such as filing of objections, requests for examination, and requests for adjudgment. Accordingly, the second disposition of this case constitutes an adjudication under the proviso of Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act in that it is a decision to dismiss an objection under Article 18 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter “Civil Petitions Act”) against an administrative agency which originally rendered the disposition of rejection. The first judgment is merely merely an administrative appeal with the legal reasoning as stated above concerning the meaning of the above ruling, but it does not constitute an administrative appeal with the formal meaning of the Administrative Appeals Act. Thus, the first judgment is not only an administrative agency with the same legal reasoning as stated above, but it does not constitute an administrative

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the second disposition against the objection of this case constitutes an independent disposition identical to the first disposition of this case, and thus, the lawsuit of this case should be interpreted as disputing the second disposition. However, the second disposition of this case is not an independent administrative disposition, but an adjudication on the objection of this case (proviso of Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act), and the second disposition of this case is limited to the case where the proviso of Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act is applied to the case where the adjudication of this case is based on an inherent error in the adjudication itself. In light of the above, if there is no inherent error in the adjudication itself, the lawsuit of revocation of the adjudication should be dismissed regardless of the propriety of the original disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu16901 delivered on January 25, 1994)

On the other hand, if the Plaintiff considers the disposition No. 2 of this case as a ruling, it is argued to the effect that the disposition was issued by the Defendant without the authority to make a ruling, and that there was an inherent error in its own decision itself. However, as a ruling on the objection of this case based on the Civil Petitions Act, Article 18(2) of the same Act provides that the head of the administrative agency in receipt of the objection of this case shall determine the objection within 10 days and notify the petitioner of the result. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on the premise that the disposition No. 2

Furthermore, the plaintiff filed the objection of this case and the period until the defendant made the second disposition of this case shall not be included in the period of the lawsuit of this case, and the defendant also notified the result of the plaintiff's objection of this case more late than the response period stipulated in the Civil Procedure Act, so that the plaintiff's trust should be protected.

However, there is no ground to exclude the above period from the period of filing a lawsuit against the first disposition of this case, and as long as the second disposition of this case is not an administrative appeal against the second disposition of this case, there is no ground to view that the period of filing a lawsuit against the first disposition of this case should be changed by the defendant's notification of the above decision (the second disposition of this case) more late than the statutory period. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Poe-dae (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-hoon