A. Whether a request for evaluation under Article 43(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act constitutes the procedure of prior trial of administrative litigation (negative)

(b) Where the indication of an institution submitting the administrative appeal is deemed to be a legitimate administrative appeal, or a request for examination under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act;

(a) The request for examination under the provisions of Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act shall not fall under the procedure of an administrative litigation;

B. In order for an administrative appeal to be recognized as a legitimate administrative appeal only when the indication of the institution which submitted the administrative appeal was erroneous, but the agency which submitted the relevant disposition was indicated as an institution which did not have the authority to examine and decide on the relevant disposition, but in fact, it should be deemed that the administrative agency with the authority to make a judgment has filed an administrative appeal. However, the case where the purpose of a request for examination pursuant to the Board of Audit and Inspection Act is clearly stated cannot be deemed to be a case where the submission institution was erroneous, and thus, it cannot

(a) Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 43 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 17 of the Administrative Appeals Act;

(a) Supreme Court Decision 78Nu22 delivered on February 28, 1978 (Gong1978, 10712). Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1608 delivered on November 22, 198 (Gong1989, 32) 90Nu528 delivered on October 26, 1990 (Gong190, 2443)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu19727 delivered on May 17, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff's request for examination under Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act was rejected on October 31, 1989 after he received the disposition of vicarious execution of this case on September 18, 1989. However, the above request for examination under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act cannot be deemed to fall under the pre-trial procedure of administrative litigation, and otherwise, it cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiff made a request for an administrative appeal against the disposition of vicarious execution of this case. The plaintiff submitted a request for examination to the defendant by stating that he made a request for examination against the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection after he received the disposition of vicarious execution of this case from the defendant and submitted it to the defendant that it should be deemed to be an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act. The court below determined that the plaintiff's request for examination cannot be deemed to be an administrative appeal under the provisions of Article 43 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, since it is clearly stated that the plaintiff's request for examination cannot be deemed to have been presented to the defendant.

In comparison with the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, examining the records in detail, the evidence No. 11 (written petition) pointing out by the theory of lawsuit is submitted by the plaintiff to the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection as an incidental document when submitting the above written request for examination, and it is difficult to regard it as an independent administrative appeal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below did not ex officio examine whether the submission of this written petition can be seen as an administrative appeal request, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)