The case holding that a written petition cannot be seen as the president of the court.

When submitting an application for a building permit to a building subject to guidance issued in the name of the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government to the head of the Gu, and attaching to the end a petition seeking the correction thereof, which is unreasonable in the manner of guidance and at the end, and if the person in charge received a return from the employee in charge on the ground that the petition is unnecessary, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed that a legitimate filing of a lawsuit against the guidance

Articles 7 and 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 8 and 7 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, Article 3 of the Sub-Action Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff on October 23, 1971 to remove the first floor of 50 square meters and 44 square meters of 19,50 square meters of 1,50 square meters of 1,50 square meters of 199 ground 199, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant.

First, we examine ex officio the legitimacy of the case.

Under the provisions of Article 7 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act and Article 2 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, an administrative litigation seeking a cancellation of the first class action shall be filed after filing a suit with the relevant administrative agency or a directly superior administrative agency, and such a ruling shall be filed after light of the nature of the disposition. However, in general, in light of the nature of the disposition, a suit may be filed without warning the ruling in the case where there is a concern for serious damage due to light of the ruling of a commissioner as provided in the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, or there is a justifiable reason, and in this case, it is necessary to bring a suit to the court and not go through the ruling. In this case, Article 8 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act provides that the provisions of Article 7 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act provide that the protection of the right to release shall not interfere with the right to release from the court. This does not stipulate that a suit may be filed without filing a lawsuit seeking a cancellation of the disposition by proxy.

However, comprehensively taking account of the witness evidence Nos. 1 (a) recognized by the non-party witness's testimony, the plaintiff submitted an application for a building permit to the head of Seodaemun-gu, which is not an administrative agency or its direct superior administrative agency on Nov. 1, 1971, and submitted to the head of Seodaemun-gu, which sought withdrawal of the purport of the purport of the claim as it is improper, along with a petition (a petition attached to the confirmation source of evidence No. 1) that is in front of the head of Seodaemun-gu, which is in favor of the non-party witness's testimony. The construction of Seodaemun-gu, which received the plaintiff's building permit application, and the construction supervisor cannot be seen as being attached to the above document No. 1 at the end of the same year. Thus, even if the plaintiff's above application for building permit was not submitted to the above administrative agency, and it cannot be seen that the plaintiff's appeal was not submitted to the plaintiff's original administrative agency or its return of the above document without any justifiable ground for rejection. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's appeal of the above legal form of the construction permit as well.

Judges Yong-Ank, Myun (Presiding Judge)