In the event that the president has been submitted to the subordinate institution, which is not a legitimate transit institution, the criteria for determining whether the period of filing is complied with;

In filing a suit prescribed in the Sub-Appeal Act (repealed by the enforcement of the Administrative Appeals Act, Oct. 1, 1985), if the director of the Sub-Appellant submits it to an agency, not a legitimate transit agency, it shall be determined whether the period of filing the suit is observed on the basis of the time of delivery to the legitimate transit agency.

Articles 2(1), 3(1), and 3(1) of the source Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Nu430 Decided February 13, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu587 Decided June 12, 1984

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu76 delivered on September 17, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the decision of urban planning facilities (road) and the decision of modification were publicly announced in the Official Gazette on July 24, 1984, the court below determined that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Prime Minister via the defendant on September 17, 1984, and that the plaintiff was aware of the decision of the urban planning (road) on July 24, 1984, and that the plaintiff was made 30 days after the expiration of 30 days under the former part of Article 3(1) of the Claimant Act, and that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was unlawful since it did not go through the lawful procedure of prior trial under Article 2(1) of the former Administrative Litigation Act.

According to Article 2(1) of the repealed Sub-won Act (repealed by the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Appeals Act, Oct. 1, 1985), a plaintiff shall file a lawsuit with a direct superior administrative agency via the disposition administrative agency. If the director of the sub-committee submits the above legitimate transit agency, he/she shall determine whether the period of filing a lawsuit is observed based on the time when the documents are sent to the legitimate transit agency (see Supreme Court Decision 78Nu430, Feb. 13, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu587, Jun. 12, 1984).

In this case, the plaintiff's director of the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking the revocation of the defendant's decision of the urban planning facilities of this case (the decision of July 9, 1984, which was announced in the Official Gazette) was received by Gangdong-gu Office, a subordinate agency of the defendant on September 6, 1984 ("verification of the fact of repair of the plaintiff's plaintiff's appellate brief" attached to the plaintiff's appellate brief), and the above director of the lawsuit received and reached September 17, 1984 to the defendant, who is a legitimate transit agency. Thus, the plaintiff received the notice of public notice and public inspection for the urban planning implementation plan on August 10, 1984 and actually known the notice of the decision of the urban planning facilities of this case (road) and calculated the period of filing the lawsuit from that time. However, if the director of the lawsuit had already received it to the defendant, it is obvious that the period of filing the lawsuit was 30 days after the expiration of the period of filing the lawsuit stipulated in the former part of Article 3 (1) of the above party.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that judged the procedure of the previous trial of this case as unlawful is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out in the lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)