A. Criteria for determining whether an administrative agency's act is an administrative disposition

(b) A case where it cannot be deemed that a guidance on payment of money substitution charges in lieu of the cancellation of designation of a medical care institution is an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation;

A. The issue of whether an administrative disposition is deemed an administrative disposition cannot be determined abstractly, and in specific cases, an administrative disposition is a law enforcement with regard to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency as the public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. Considering that an administrative disposition is an act that meets the requirements of establishment or validity in its subject, content, procedure, and form, a certain degree of administrative disposition must be individually determined depending on which the administrative disposition satisfies the requirements of establishment or validity. Without any legal basis, a certain act of an administrative agency has the same external form as an administrative disposition that objectively gives any disadvantage to the people. If the counter-party to the act is recognized as an administrative disposition, it is necessary to take measures to eliminate disadvantages or apprehensions from the disadvantage or apprehension of the people arising from the act of an administrative agency. In light of the above, whether there is disadvantage or apprehension of disadvantage to the other party due to the act of the administrative agency should be determined

B. The official text of the Medical Insurance Federation’s guidance on the payment of money substitution charges in lieu of the cancellation of the designation of medical care institutions may not take effect as an administrative disposition that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people due to the lack of any legal basis even though the act of the administrative agency is an act of the administrative agency, and its content does not seem to impose any obligation under public law on the other party, and there is no apprehension about the issue of whether it can be viewed as an administrative disposition. Therefore, it cannot be viewed as an administrative

(a)Article 2(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 33(1), 33(2)1, and 45(1) of the Medical Insurance Act; Articles 3-2(1) and 3-2(2) of the Medical Insurance Act (No. 31516-16789, Dec. 2, 198);

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 82Nu8883 decided Sep. 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1487) dated Mar. 4, 1983 (Gong1992, 916) 91Nu1714 decided Jan. 17, 1992

Plaintiff-Appellee Law Firm, Attorneys Shin Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Medical Insurance Federation and one other Defendants' attorney-at-law advice

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu27565 delivered on April 22, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The issue of whether an administrative disposition is deemed an administrative disposition cannot be determined abstract, general, and in specific cases, an administrative disposition is a law enforcement with regard to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency as a public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. Considering that an administrative disposition is a law enforcement with regard to a specific fact conducted by an administrative agency as a public authority, the administrative disposition must be determined individually according to which the administrative disposition satisfies the requirements of its subject, content, procedure, and form. A certain act of an administrative agency has the same external form as an administrative disposition which objectively gives disadvantages to the people without any legal basis. If the counter-party to the act is recognized as an administrative disposition, it is necessary to take measures to eliminate disadvantages or apprehensions from the disadvantage or apprehensions of the people derived from the act of the administrative agency. In light of the above, whether there is disadvantage or apprehension of the other party due to the act of the administrative agency should be determined by considering not only the degree of legal administration at that time, the level of awareness of the rights of the people, but also the attitude of the relevant administrative agency related to

In light of the above public notice on the payment of money in lieu of the Defendants sent to the Plaintiff, first, the Defendant Federation of Medical Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Federation”) issued the title of the public notice on the payment of unjust enrichment with regard to the payment of money in lieu of the money in lieu of the payment of the said money in lieu of the said public notice on the payment of the money in lieu of the said money in lieu of the said public notice on the payment in lieu of the said public notice on the money in lieu of the said public notice on the payment in lieu of the said public notice on the money in lieu of the said public notice on the payment in lieu of the said public notice on the money in lieu of the said public notice on the payment in lieu of the said public notice on the money in lieu of the said public notice on the payment in lieu of the said public notice on the money in lieu of the said public notice on the payment in lieu of the said public notice on the money in lieu of the said public notice on the payment in lieu of the said public notice on the money in lieu of the said public notice on the payment in lieu of the said public notice on the payment in lieu.

In full view of the above circumstances, although the official text of this case is an act of an administrative agency, it cannot take effect as an administrative disposition that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people because it has no legal basis, and its content does not seem to impose any obligation under public law on the other party, and there is no apprehension about the issue of whether it can be viewed as an administrative disposition. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a disposition subject to administrative litigation.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case on the ground that it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation in the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to administrative disposition like the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)