A. Whether the decision of the State Compensation Deliberative Committee is an administrative disposition

(b) requirements for consolidation of related claims in administrative litigation.

A. The decision of the Compensation Council under the State Compensation Act is not an administrative disposition, but is not an administrative litigation.

B. The consolidation of related litigation under Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act requires the original administrative litigation to be lawful.

Articles 1 and 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu238 Delivered on November 25, 1975

Plaintiff

The National Compensation Headquarters Deliberation Committee

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu140 delivered on May 13, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

Even though the State Compensation Act provides that a citizen who suffered from a tort in the course of performing his duties claims against the State or a local government, the State Compensation Act, which is a special law for civil liability (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da70, Oct. 10, 1972; 69Da70, Oct. 10, 1972; hereinafter referred to as the same Act), and that “only after the decision of the Compensation Council to pay compensation or dismiss compensation, a lawsuit for damages under the same Act may be brought only after the decision of the Compensation Council may be made” under the main sentence of Article 9 of the same Act is nothing more than the pre-determination requirement before a claim for damages under the same civil law is made. Thus, the above decision of the Compensation Council cannot be deemed an administrative disposition, and thus, it shall not be subject to an urban administrative litigation. Accordingly, the court below is just and justifiable to have determined that the plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case, which was based on the premise that the Decision of

2. On the second ground for appeal:

The issue is that the plaintiff's claim for damages of this case is related to the claim of administrative litigation and therefore, although the above claim for damages is not subject to the administrative litigation, but is illegal, the court below rejected this part of the lawsuit on the ground that it is unlawful. Thus, since the consolidation of related litigation as stipulated in Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act requires that the original administrative litigation is legitimate, and the consolidation of litigation as stipulated in Article 7 of the same Act is deemed to belong to the court's discretion (Article 63Nu3 of March 21, 1963), so long as the administrative litigation of this case is unlawful as stated in the above instruction, it is not reasonable to see that the above claim for damages of this case was joined in the administrative litigation of this case as alleged by the plaintiff, even if it was rejected as the requirement for consolidation, and thus, it cannot be raised as above without consolidation. Thus, the judgment below is without merit.

3. If so, all of the arguments are without merit, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)