Whether the examination and dismissal disposition by the Board of Audit and Inspection on national taxes are subject to administrative litigation.

In the event that the Board of Audit and Inspection deems the request for review reasonable, it does not correct the disposition of the institution directly audited, but requires the head of the institution concerned to correct it. Therefore, such a request for correction cannot be a disposition that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people, including the applicant for review, and is merely an act between administrative agencies. Thus, it is not subject to administrative litigation.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 43 and 44 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 5 of the Rules on Examination by the Board of Audit and Inspection

Supreme Court Decision 67Nu44 delivered on June 27, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 322Daad 322, Supreme Court Decision 12Na22, Decision No. 43(1)37 of Board of Audit and Inspection Act)

16 others, such as Gyeongnam Company, etc.

Board of Audit

The plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The legal representative of the plaintiffs sought a ruling that the defendant dismissed the request for review on January 4, 1966 concerning the imposition of corporate tax of each plaintiffs as stipulated in Article 32, 34, 37 through 39, 40, 50,52 of the Seoul High Court Decision 32, 34, 37 through 39, 50,52.

First of all, we examine whether the defendant's disposition stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") can be seen as a disposition subject to administrative litigation.

(1) Nos. 2-1 through 17 of the evidence presumed to have been established as a public document, and entries in this document and statements No. 1-1 through 17 of the same evidence presumed to have been established in accordance with the purport of pleading.

According to the above, it can be seen that the plaintiffs were subject to the disposition of imposing corporate tax by each head of the tax office to file a lawsuit, and that the decision to dismiss the request for examination submitted to the defendant under Articles 45 and 43 of the Board of Audit

(2) However, according to Articles 43 and 44 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act and Article 5 of the Rules of the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Board of Audit and Inspection shall, upon receiving a request for examination from an interested party with respect to the duties of the auditor, examine the request and notify the head of the agency concerned of the decision, and the head of the agency in receipt of the notification shall take appropriate measures in accordance with the notified decision. In light of such provisions, the Board of Audit and Inspection may, in case where the request for examination is deemed reasonable, request the head of the agency concerned to correct the disposition, not directly audited. Thus, the disposition of request for correction can not be deemed a disposition which directly affects the rights and duties of the people including the applicant for examination, and it cannot be said that the disposition of request for review is merely an administrative litigation. Thus, it cannot be asserted that there is no room for rejection of the request for review as prescribed by the Rules of the Ministry of Audit and Inspection as an administrative litigation even if it does not affect the Plaintiffs’ request for review as well as the disposition of the administrative agency concerned.

(3) If so, the plaintiffs' lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-joon