[1] In a case where a third party has filed an administrative appeal against an administrative act involving the effect of a third party and the third party has filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the original disposition against the above judgment, whether the above lawsuit is an assertion of an inherent defect in the original disposition (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that where the cited ruling authority has made a formative ruling to cancel the approval of the project plan directly, the ruling itself can be subject to litigation because there is no separate disposition other than the ruling, since there is no separate disposition

[3] The scope of deliberation and determination of the pertinent lawsuit seeking the revocation of the quoted adjudication, which is subject to the adjudication whether the quoted adjudication is proper

[1] In so-called an effective administrative act, in particular, in an administrative appeal against an administrative act involving a third party's effect, a person who may receive the benefit of right only due to the adjudication accepting the claim, needs to contest against the adjudication of acceptance. Since the adjudication of acceptance differs from the original disposition, making it different from the contents of the original disposition, seeking the cancellation of the quoted adjudication is an assertion of an inherent defect in the adjudication that is not in the original disposition, and therefore,

[2] The case holding that in case where the Minister of Culture and Sports, as the pertinent ruling, has made a formative decision to cancel the approval of the project plan directly, the adjudication itself shall be subject to litigation because there is no separate disposition of the administrative agency following the decision in addition to the decision

[3] The lawsuit in question seeking the revocation of the quoted decision shall be subject to the determination of the propriety of the quoted decision, and for this purpose, the decision of the ruling authority on the grounds for the request for an administrative appeal shall also be examined and judged as to the propriety of the decision. Therefore, the court below shall deliberate and determine whether the ruling authority has justifiable grounds for the revocation of the original decision, as well as whether the decision of the ruling authority has rejected the grounds for the request for an administrative appeal by the claimant.

[1] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition], 12, 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 35 of the Administrative Appeals Act / [2] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition], 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 35 of the Administrative Appeals Act / [3] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition], 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 35 of the Administrative Appeals Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15592 delivered on June 13, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2414) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14661 delivered on September 12, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3142)

A. Heal Development Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Yong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Minister of Culture and Sports

Defendant 1 and 12 others (Attorney Yoon Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu24052 delivered on June 19, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant 1’s litigation performer and the grounds of appeal by the attorney of the non-interception assistant in the Intervenor joining the Defendant are also examined.

1. The so-called "uneffective administrative act" and, in particular, in an administrative appeal concerning an administrative act involving a third party's effect, a person who, only due to a ruling citing the claim (for example, a third party where a third party is a petitioner for an administrative appeal or the other party to an administrative disposition is a petitioner for an administrative appeal) needs to contest against the ruling of acceptance. Since a ruling of acceptance differs from the original disposition, filing a claim for cancellation of the quoted ruling is an assertion of an inherent defect that does not exist in the original disposition, and thus, it is subject to appeal litigation as a matter of course. Furthermore, as in the ruling of this case, if the defendant, who is the quoted ruling authority, has made a formative ruling revoking the approval of the project plan of this case directly, the ruling itself is not subject to separate disposition of the administrative agency as well as the subsequent disposition.

In the same purport, the court below rejected the defendant's defense on the ground that the defendant's claim for administrative appeal against the plaintiff of the non-party 1 et al., seeking the revocation of the approval of the project plan of this case against the plaintiff of the non-party 1 et al. (hereinafter the original disposition of this case), and that the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking the revocation of such approval was an assertion of illegality inherent in the adjudication, and therefore, it is just to reject the defendant's defense on the part of the opposing opinion, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles

2. According to the written ruling and the reasoning of the judgment of the court below as to the administrative appeal of this case, the defendant's judgment of this case did not accept the grounds for the administrative appeal of this case while claiming the cancellation of the original disposition, but it was made a quoted ruling of this case where the above original disposition was revoked for any other reason. The judgment of the court below as to the administrative litigation of this case seeking the cancellation of the original disposition of this case was unlawful, and the above quoted ruling of this case revoked the original disposition for any other reason than the grounds for the appeal filed by the petitioner for the administrative appeal of this case, and did not separately determine the propriety of the judgment which rejected the grounds for the initial appeal

However, the lawsuit in this case seeking the revocation of the above quoted ruling is subject to the determination of the propriety of the quoted ruling, and the decision of the ruling authority as to the grounds for appeal by the applicants for administrative appeals should be examined and determined. Therefore, the court below erred by failing to reach the determination, even though the ruling authority should have deliberated and determined not only the grounds for the determination that were based on the revocation of the original disposition, but also the part that rejected the grounds for appeal by the ruling authority as well as the grounds for appeal by the claimant.

However, in light of the records and relevant laws, it seems that the defendant's decision that the ground for the appeal claimed by the claimant of this case was groundless in the adjudication of this case, and eventually, the above mistake of the court below is not affected by the judgment of this case. There is no reason for the guidance of this case.

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's approval of the project plan of this case, which is alleged by the petitioner for administrative appeals, defects in the procedure for the approval of the project plan of this case, the approval of the project plan which permits the construction of golf courses as park facilities although they are not included in park facilities, and the approval of the project plan of this case which threatens the right to survival by impairing the living environment of nearby old-Gun residents, is legitimate and reasonable, while the approval of the project plan of this case is judged to be legitimate and reasonable, but it establishes a national park protection policy to revise the Natural Parks Act to prohibit the construction of golf courses in a national park, such as that the national park is a minor asset that must be preserved and managed in its original form, that the national park is not generalized, and that the construction of golf courses in a national park is not significant in terms of the public interest in terms of natural environment protection in terms of its purpose, and that the defendant's revocation of the original disposition of this case is not a ground for revocation of the original disposition of this case.

The above judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, but it seems that the original disposition of this case contains no error of abuse or deviation of discretionary authority. In light of the records, the above recognition and determination of the court below is correct, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the interpretation of a written judgment, omission of judgment, and omission of reasoning as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)