[1] The scope of an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation, and whether a general and abstract statute can be subject to it (negative in principle)

[2] The case holding that Article 31 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Medical Service Act, which limits the size of letters, does not directly change the specific rights and duties or legal relations of citizens, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation, as it does not directly affect the specific rights and duties of citizens

[1] Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 31 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 261 of October 1, 2003), Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Nu528 delivered on April 26, 1983 (Gong1983, 907), Supreme Court Decision 87Nu761 delivered on November 24, 1987 (Gong1988, 189), Supreme Court Decision 93Du2 delivered on April 12, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1312), Supreme Court Decision 94Du33 delivered on September 10, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2870)

Plaintiff 1 and 12 others (Attorney Cho Sung-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Health and Welfare

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu26262 delivered on October 14, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

An administrative disposition that is the object of an appeal litigation shall be an act of an administrative agency under the public law, which is an act of establishing a right and order pursuant to the law regarding a specific matter, order an obligation pursuant to other laws, and shall be an act directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as giving rise to other legal effects. In itself, without mediating other enforcement acts, a general, abstract law, etc., which does not directly cause a change in the specific rights and obligations or legal relations of the people, cannot be subject to it (see Supreme Court Decision 94Du33, Sept. 10,

In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Article 31(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 261 of Oct. 1, 2003) limits the size of the letters to not more than 1/2 of the size of the letters indicating the name of a medical institution, but the above provision does not themselves constitute an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation because it does not cause a direct change in the specific rights and obligations or legal relations of the citizens, as it does not directly cause a change in the specific rights and obligations or legal relations of the citizens against the violator, and thus, it is reasonable to have determined that the lawsuit of this case seeking its revocation is unlawful, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the administrative disposition, as otherwise alleged in

In addition, in this case where the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case, the argument related to the legitimacy of the merits cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)