The head of the branch office which is merely a mere delegation of internal affairs from the head of the Gu shall take an administrative disposition under his/her name and be subject to defendant of administrative litigation thereon.

If the head of a branch office which is only an internal delegation from the head of the Gu with the authority to appoint the head of the Dong and the authority to take disciplinary action under his/her name is illegal, but if the head of the branch office or the administrative agency which succeeded to the above branch office or the position of the head of the Dong files a request for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition, the administrative

Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu217 Delivered on November 25, 1980

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Park Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu76 delivered on September 26, 1979

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first and second points:

According to the Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu562 (Supreme Court Decision 78Nu189) case records verified by the court below, the plaintiff sought the cancellation of the above removal disposition against the defendant as the cause of claim against the defendant, on June 4, 1976 that there was a defect corresponding to the ground for cancellation of the removal disposition against the plaintiff as the principal claim. The plaintiff sought the confirmation of invalidity of the above removal disposition on the ground that the principal claim is identical to the defendant. The Seoul High Court dismissed the above main claim and accepted it as the ground for confirmation of invalidity of the above removal disposition against the defendant, and did not determine that the plaintiff's claim was not claimed, but did not determine it. The plaintiff withdrawn the lawsuit after the above judgment as to the above preliminary claim was reversed by the defendant's appeal. The plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity against the above principal claim was without a final judgment as to the plaintiff's above principal claim, and the court below's conjunctive decision against the defendant cannot be seen as an unlawful determination of the court below's subjective error as to the plaintiff's revocation of the above removal disposition.

2. As to No. 2:

As the court below duly admitted, the appointment right and disciplinary action against the head of the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. However, the authority of the head of the Gu to the head of the Dong-dong under the jurisdiction of the head of the Dong-dong under the jurisdiction of the head of the Dong-gu branch office, and the plaintiff's work belongs to the jurisdiction of the above sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub, which is illegal for the head of the above sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the original court for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)