[1] The effects of a formative ruling

[2] Whether a notice of the result of a formative adjudication constitutes an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation (negative)

[1] According to Article 32 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, when a request for a revocation trial is deemed reasonable, a ruling authority shall order the revocation or alteration of the disposition, or the cancellation or alteration to the disposition authority. Thus, in an administrative appeal, if the contents of a ruling by a ruling authority are not ordered to revoke the disposition by the disposition authority, not to order the cancellation of the disposition authority, but to revoke the disposition by the disposition by itself, the relevant administrative disposition naturally becomes extinct without any separate administrative disposition

[2] The request that the disposition agency, which received the decision from the ruling agency, should return the certificate issued at the time of acceptance of the report on the change of factory establishment by notifying the other party of the decision, shall not be deemed to be a new administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation and is merely a notification of the fact.

[1] Article 32 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act / [2] Article 32 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1879 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1485)

Dae concrete Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Ho-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Sacheon Market

Cho Jae-sung et al. (Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 95Gu7772 delivered on August 21, 1996

The judgment of the court below is reversed. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's report of change on May 20, 1991, 346 - 1, 347 - 2 of each of the above 96 - 1,48 square meters of land for a factory on May 20, 1991, and the defendant's report of change on the above 9-2,48 square meters of the above 9-2. The defendant's report of change on the above 9-2,48 square meters of the above 9-2, and the ground that the defendant's report of change was made on September 14, 1994 to expand the above factory site, factory building and manufacturing facilities, and new construction of other incidental facilities. The defendant's report of change on the 9-2, 9-2, 9-2, 9-2, 9-3, 9-1, 9-1, 9-2, 9-2, 9-3, 9-1, 19.

According to Article 32 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, when a request for revocation trial is deemed reasonable, a ruling authority shall revoke or change the disposition, or order the disposition authority to revoke or change the disposition. Thus, in an administrative appeal, if the contents of the ruling by a ruling authority are not to order the cancellation of the disposition authority, but the disposition by the disposition authority itself is revoked, the relevant administrative disposition is naturally revoked and extinguished without any separate administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1879 delivered on April 12, 1994). Therefore, the defendant in receipt of the above ruling does not need to revoke the acceptance disposition by January 9, 195. Thus, the defendant merely notifies the plaintiff of the result of the above ruling on September 23, 195, and the defendant requested the return of a certificate of report on change of factory establishment issued on January 9, 199. (The defendant can not be deemed to be unlawful if the above notification to the plaintiff together with the above notification is made to the High Court having jurisdiction over this case.)

Nevertheless, the court below decided that the defendant's notification to the plaintiff on September 23, 1995 as a new administrative disposition which is subject to appeal litigation, as the result of the decision of the Do governor's revocation on the acceptance disposition of January 9, 1995. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to administrative disposition which is subject to appeal litigation, and it is clear that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient to directly render a judgment at this court. As such, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as seen above, and thus, the entire costs of the lawsuit are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the lawsuit at the

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)