Article 23 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Procedures Act") provides that a disposition for which the basis and reason for the disposition are not specifically specified is not unlawful in the procedure.

Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act

Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20348 Decided December 10, 2009 (Gong2011Du18571 Decided November 4, 2013)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Yang, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

President (Court of Law, Attorney Go Young-seok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korean Broadcasting System (Attorney Kim Young-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu62820 decided June 16, 2016

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that when an administrative agency makes a disposition, the administrative agency shall present the grounds and reasons therefor to the parties. This purport is to exclude the arbitrary decision of the administrative agency and allow the parties to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. Therefore, in full view of the content of the disposition, relevant statutes, and overall process leading to the disposition, in a case where it is deemed that there was no particular hindrance to moving into the administrative remedy procedure as a result of sufficiently knowing the existence of grounds and reasons for the disposition at the time of the disposition, the disposition cannot be deemed unlawful unless the grounds and reasons for the disposition are specified in the written disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20348, Dec. 10, 2009).

B. The court below held that the above disposition cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the defendant did not present the legal basis and reason for the dismissal disposition in this case, but presented to the defendant by the board of directors of the intervenor corporation to dismiss the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff sent a notice of convening a board of directors and meeting documents to the plaintiff during the resolution, and that the plaintiff was guaranteed an opportunity to make oral statements to the above board of directors, the plaintiff could sufficiently know the facts and details of the disposition in this case, and the legal basis thereof, and there was no particular obstacle to dispute over the dismissal disposition through administrative litigation, on the ground that the defendant did not present the grounds and reason for the dismissal disposition in this case.

C. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, although the court below partially inappropriate in its reasoning, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the basis of the disposition and the degree of presentation of the reasons under the Administrative Procedures Act, or by failing to state the reasons or by inconsistency in the reasoning, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant’s dismissal ground for the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to be beyond the scope of its discretionary power, and that the Plaintiff’s dismissal ground for dismissal of the Intervenor’s report on the sinking and rescue work in the Sewol Ferry was unreasonable, as it did not appear that the Plaintiff’s dismissal ground for dismissal was in a situation in which it was impossible for the Intervenor to perform its normal function, and that the Plaintiff failed to perform its official duty as the president of the Intervenor’s Corporation.

B. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts in violation of logical and empirical rules, misapprehending the legal doctrine on the degree of deviation and abuse of discretionary power, failing to state the grounds, or inconsistency in its reasoning, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)