A. Whether Article 17 of the Administrative Appeals Act applies to the appeal procedure unless there is a provision excluding or conflicting with the provisions of Article 17 of the Administrative Appeals Act (affirmative)

(b) The case holding that if the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor did not inform the respondent of the procedures for filing an appeal when excluding local public officials under his/her jurisdiction from promotion, the request for an administrative appeal shall be deemed to have been filed when the request for an appeal was submitted to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor even though the respondent was indicated as the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and

A. Article 43 of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that matters not provided for in other Acts concerning administrative appeals shall be subject to the provisions of this Act. Meanwhile, Article 17(2) of the same Act provides that if an appellant submits a written appeal to another administrative agency without delay a written appeal to the competent administrative agency without delay due to the administrative agency's failure to notify or wrong notification of the passage through the written appeal to the competent administrative agency, the relevant administrative agency shall send the written appeal to the competent administrative agency without delay. Article 18(7) of the same Act provides that in calculating the period for a written appeal to the administrative agency under Article 18(2), a written appeal shall be deemed to have been filed at the time of the submission of the written appeal to the administrative agency under paragraph (2) of the same Article, unless the provisions of Article 17 of the Act on the Procedure for Appeal to Disadvantage a Local Public Officials

(b) The case holding that if the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor did not notify the procedures for filing an appeal with respect to unfavorable disposition excluding its public officials from promotion, the request for administrative appeal by the above public officials should have been sent without delay to the competent local public official appeals review committee, and the above request for appeal should be deemed to have been filed when it was submitted to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor Mayor, even if the respondent was represented by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and the Prime Minister submitted in the future.

Article 17 of the Administrative Appeals Act and Article 67 (2) of the Local Public Officials Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other

Attorney Gyeong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu13726 delivered on December 24, 1991

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

We examine the Plaintiffs’ respective grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiffs, who are local administrative officials, applied for the first-class 7 general examination for promotion conducted by the defendant in January 15, 1991, and received each passing notice from the defendant on January 15, 1991, the defendant did not dispute the fact that the plaintiffs were excluded from promotion under the above promotion examination due to the reason that they are the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the head of subordinate office for the reason that they were subject to the above promotion examination, due to the fact that they were erroneous acts as prescribed by the Local Public Officials Act. According to Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act Article 13 of the Local Public Officials Act, the cancellation lawsuit against the administrative disposition can not be filed without the decision of the Prime Minister, and Article 13 of the Local Public Officials Act provides that the plaintiffs may not request the examination of the above disposition against the public official's objection against the punishment of public officials or other disadvantages against their will, and therefore, it is not possible to request the examination of the above disposition against the plaintiffs' decision of promotion and dismissal.

2. However, according to the records, the plaintiffs submitted a written request for an administrative appeal via the defendant on February 8, 191 to the Prime Minister through the defendant on February 8, 191 after the defendant excluded the plaintiffs from promotion. Since the procedures for appeal against local public officials' disciplinary action and other unfavorable measures against their will are stipulated in Articles 13 through 21 of the Local Public Officials Act, the non-compliance with the procedures for appeal are illegal. However, Article 43 of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that matters not prescribed in other Acts regarding the administrative appeal shall be governed by the provisions of this Act. Meanwhile, Article 17 (2) of the same Act provides that if an administrative agency did not notify or mistakenly notifies another administrative agency of the procedure through the request for appeal and the appellant submitted the request for appeal to another administrative agency without delay, the administrative agency concerned shall send the request for appeal to the competent administrative agency without delay. Article 17 (7) of the same Act provides that in calculating the period for appeal under Article 18, the request for appeal shall be deemed to have been filed when an administrative agency under paragraph (2) was submitted.

Therefore, if the defendant did not inform the plaintiffs of the procedures for filing an appeal in relation to the unfavorable disposition of this case against the plaintiffs, the defendant who received the petition should have sent it without delay to the appeals review committee for local public officials with legitimate authority, and when the above appeal is submitted to the defendant, as long as the plaintiffs' written appeal is about objection against the unfavorable disposition of local public officials even if the defendant was expressed to the defendant and the Prime Minister.

Without examining the above point, it is reasonable for the court below to have dismissed this lawsuit on the sole ground that it is unlawful, and the conclusion of this lawsuit is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Administrative Appeals Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the argument on this point is reasonable.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)