(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.11.5. 선고 2015구합68680 판결

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim against the defendant among the instant lawsuit filed by the Minister of Employment and Labor

A. The part seeking revocation of rejection of an application for suspension of validity of the vocational ability development account (on-site learning card)

According to the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff applied for the postponement of the internal support card to the head of the Ansan-si District Labor Office on June 17, 2014, and the head of the Central District Labor Administration’s Regional Labor Administration may recognize the Plaintiff’s refusal of the above application. Therefore, the Defendant is the Central Labor Administration, and the Minister of Employment and Labor has no standing to be the Defendant, and the part seeking the revocation of the above refusal disposition is unlawful since it is against the non-qualified person.

B. The part demanding the performance of the obligation

The Plaintiff is seeking certain acts against the Minister of Employment and Labor by taking into account the following circumstances: “Choki manual and the regulations on the internal learning card, the weak persons, and the unemployed, to examine postponement and suspension.” Such deferment and suspension must be made by a committee.” However, this is the so-called performance litigation that does not fall under the category of administrative litigation provided for in Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the interpretation of the current Administrative Litigation Act does not allow any other form of administrative litigation except as provided for in Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da15828, Feb. 13, 2004). The above part of the claim for performance is also unlawful.

The consolidation of related claim lawsuits under Article 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act is a requirement that the original appeal is lawful. Thus, in a case where an appeal suit is dismissed on the ground that it is unlawful, the relevant joined claim does not satisfy the requirements of the lawsuit, and thus, its dismissal cannot be avoided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu1990, Nov. 11, 1997; 200Du697, Nov. 27, 2001).

The plaintiff filed a claim with the Minister of Employment and Labor to seek compensation for damages caused by the illegal act of the defendant. As seen above, as long as it should be dismissed as the original appeal litigation, etc. is unlawful, the above part of the claim for damages, which is related

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for damages against the Central Administrative Appeals Commission among the lawsuits in this case

The plaintiff violates the Civil Procedure Act or is under the adjudication rendered by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the plaintiff.

The liability for damages (15 million won) arising from the assertion that there was an omission of some of the necessary matters, and the liability for damages is unlawful. This is not only the subject of civil procedure due to the claim for damages under the State Compensation Act, but also the object of civil procedure against the simple administrative agency, which is not the subject of the right, and thus, the lawsuit against the Central Administrative Appeals Commission of the defendant was unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is all unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition.