[1] The meaning of an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation

[2] In a case where the National Health Insurance Corporation notified Gap et al. of the "information on the deprivation of employment provided for in the employment provided for in the employment provided for in the employment provided for in the employment provided for in the above notification and the "information on deprivation of employment provided for in the ex officio withdrawal from a workplace, the case affirming the judgment below

[1] The term "administrative disposition", which is the object of an appeal litigation, means an act of an administrative agency under public law, which causes direct change in the specific rights and obligations of citizens, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or causing other legal effects with regard to a specific matter, by an administrative agency, and an act which does not directly change the legal status of the other party or other related persons, such as actions, intermediation, solicitation, de facto notification, etc. inside the administrative agency,

[2] In a case where the National Health Insurance Corporation notified Gap et al. of the "Guidance on Disqualification for Employment-Provided Policyholders and Change of Insured Status" and "Guidance on Disqualification for Employment-Provided, That the change of eligibility for National Health Insurance or self-employed insured status occurs as a matter of course from the date of occurrence of a separate disposition without involvement, etc., and thus, the National Health Insurance Corporation notified Gap et al. of the "Guidance on Disqualification for Employment-Provided, That the change of eligibility for employment-provided policyholders and change of eligibility for employment-provided policyholders," or notified the "Guidance on Disqualification for Employment-Provided, That the National Health Insurance Corporation was excluded from the applicable workplace under the National Health Insurance Act" to the effect that the workplace was excluded from the applicable workplace under the National Health Insurance Act, it is merely an act of notification within the meaning of confirming the change of eligibility for the insured, and it cannot be deemed that the change of eligibility for insured status takes effect by the above notification, and it does not directly change the rights and duties of Gap et al. by the obligation to pay the health insurance fee to Gap et al.

[1] Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Du3500 Decided April 24, 2008 Supreme Court Decision 2006Du18362 Decided September 11, 2008

Plaintiff 1 and three others

The President of the National Health Insurance Corporation Incheon District President (Attorney Park So-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu52663 decided May 20, 2016

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term "administrative disposition", which is an object of an appeal litigation, means an act of an administrative agency under public law, which causes direct change in the legal status of the other party or other persons concerned, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or causing other legal effects with regard to a specific matter under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and an act that does not directly change the legal status of the other party or other persons concerned, such as actions, intermediation, solicitation, and de facto notification, etc. inside the administrative agency, cannot be subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du3500, Apr.

Meanwhile, Article 5 of the National Health Insurance Act provides that a citizen who resides in the Republic of Korea shall be an insured person or a dependent of the insured person, and Article 6 of the same Act shall be classified as an insured person or a dependent of the insured person. Articles 8 through 10 of the same Act specify the timing of acquisition, change, or loss of the eligibility of an insured person or a self-employed insured person. In particular, Article 9(1) of the same Act provides that a self-employed person shall change his/her eligibility on the date he/she becomes an insured person or is employed as an employee, etc. (Article 11 of the same Act) and on the date following the termination of his/her employment relationship (Article 11 of the National Health Insurance Act). In addition, Article 11 of the National Health Insurance Act provides that the acquisition, change, or loss of the eligibility of an insured person shall take effect retroactively from the time of acquisition, change, or loss of the eligibility of an insured person (Article 11 of the same Act). However, in order to clarify the acquisition, change, or loss of the eligibility of an insured person (Article 2).

2. In light of the above-mentioned provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, the court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance court which dismissed all the plaintiffs' lawsuits, on the ground that the above notification was not recognized, on the ground that the change in eligibility as a national health insurance policyholder or a self-employed insured becomes effective as a matter of course from the date of occurrence of a cause provided by the Act and subordinate statutes, and that the change in eligibility as an insured person occurs without any involvement in separate disposition, etc., and thus, the defendant notified the plaintiffs of the change in eligibility as an insured person, or that the workplace was excluded from a covered workplace under the National Health Insurance Act, it is merely an act of notification in fact within the meaning of confirming the change in eligibility as an insured person and the time of the change in eligibility as an insured person, and it cannot be deemed that the change in eligibility as an insured person becomes effective by the above notification, and it does not directly change the rights and obligations of the plaintiffs by the obligation to pay the health insurance fee as a self-employed person.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant statutes and the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject of an appeal litigation.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)