(a) Whether a written objection seeking the revocation or alteration of an administrative disposition falls under a source of lawsuit;

(b) Whether the disposition administrative agency's rejection of a petition without going through an adjudication constitutes a justifiable ground for filing a lawsuit, where it returns the petition without grounds;

(c) The interest in lawsuits and lawsuits for the cancellation of an application for registration, non-repair and disposal of the cleaning businessman before the amendment of the Litter Act;

A. Since a lawsuit is interpreted as a written act that does not require strict forms, when a person whose rights or interests are infringed due to an illegal or unfair administrative disposition submits a document to the administrative agency seeking cancellation or modification of the disposition within the statutory period, such document shall be deemed as a lawsuit under Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, regardless of the title and representation of the submission agency. Thus, the document submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant who is the administrative agency which is the disposition, is an objection, but its purpose is the contents seeking cancellation of the disposition of this case, and thus, it constitutes the above lawsuit.

B. If a disposition administrative agency which received a lawsuit delivers it to a superior administrative agency or if the method is defective, it shall be returned to the person who filed the lawsuit with the set time limit for correction, but it does not constitute a refund under Article 3(3) of the original Act, and if the documents were returned to the person who filed the lawsuit without any justifiable reason, it shall not be deemed to have been withdrawn even if the head of the lawsuit was not submitted thereafter. In this case, there is any other justifiable reason as stipulated in the proviso of Article 2(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act that could bring the lawsuit without the judgment of the plaintiff.

C. According to Paragraph (3) of the Addenda of the Waste Purification Act, which was enforced on October 2, 1982, a person who registered a liquid waste cleaning business under the previous provisions is naturally deemed to have obtained permission for the business of cleaning excreta septic tanks under the new Acts. Thus, when the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive to win the judgment of this case, the defendant's disposition date of this case shall be registered as of March 15, 1982, and thus the permission is granted under the new Acts, there is a benefit of lawsuit in this case.

A. Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 1 of the Sub-Action Act, Article 2(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 2(1) of the Sub-Action Act, Article 3(3) of the Sub-Action Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu482 delivered on June 8, 1982, 82Nu210 delivered on October 12, 1982, and 82Nu343 delivered on November 22, 1983

Plaintiff

Ulsan City Mayor, Attorney Lee Sung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu104 delivered on February 8, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

Point 1

Since a source of lawsuit stipulated in the source law is interpreted as a written act that does not require strict forms, when a person whose rights or interests have been infringed by the above law or unfair administrative dispositions has submitted to the administrative agency a document seeking the cancellation or modification of the disposition within the statutory period, such a document shall be regarded as a source of lawsuit as provided in Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, regardless of the title and indicated agency (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu210, Oct. 12, 1982; 80Nu482, Jun. 8, 1982; 82Nu343, Nov. 22, 1983).

Therefore, although the document submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant who is the disposition administrative agency is an objection, the purport of the document is that the contents of the lawsuit in this case are the contents seeking cancellation of the disposition in this case, and therefore, the defendant must send it to the superior administrative agency or return it to the plaintiff by fixing the correction period if the method is defective, and without any reason, it does not constitute a return under Article 3 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, and even if the plaintiff did not submit again the plaintiff, it shall not be regarded as the withdrawal of the lawsuit in this case. In this case, there is any other justifiable reason as stipulated in the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, which can bring a lawsuit without warning the judgment of the plaintiff, and the court below judged that the lawsuit in this case is legitimate. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just and consistent with the records and records, and the Supreme Court decision pointing this out has no merit in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the law of the source of lawsuit in this case.

Point 2

The amendment of the Waste Purification Act is identical to the theory of lawsuit that the liquid waste septic tank cleaning business is changed from the registered matters to the permitted matters. However, according to paragraph (3) of the Addenda of the Waste Cleanup Act (Act No. 3554) promulgated on April 2, 1982 and enforced on October 2, 1982, which was six months after the enforcement of this Act, a person who registered the liquid waste cleaning business under the previous provisions shall be deemed a person who has obtained permission for the business of cleaning excreta cleaning under this Act, and when the registration under the former Act was made, it shall be deemed that the registration was obtained under the new Act. Therefore, when the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive as winning the plaintiff, the judgment of this case shall be registered as of March 15, 1982 at the time of the disposition of this case, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the permission was obtained under the new Act, and there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case, even if there is no clear explanation in the judgment below, the judgment of the court below shall be included in the plaintiff's grounds.

Point 3

원심판결은 그 거시의 증거에 의하여 원고는 1982.3.9. 액상폐기물정화조청소업 사무실 11평을 마련하고 같은달 12. 정화조청소에 필요한 차량인 (차량등록번호 생략) 바쿰바카 1대와 인큐베이터 시설을 매수한 후 공해관리 기사인 소외인의 취업승낙을 받은 후 같은달 13. 원고의 이력서, 원고의 소유재산 금 125,648,500원 상당을 증명하는 부동산등기부등본, 감정서, 위 소외인의 취업승낙서 및 그 졸업증명서 등을 첨부하여 이 사건 등록신청서를 제출하였다가 같은달 15. 위 등록신청이 피고에 의하여, 반려된 사실을 인정한 후 원고의 위 등록신청은 당시 시행하던 오물청소법 제14조 제2항 , 제3항 , 같은법시행규칙 제18조 , 제19조 소정의 등록요건을 갖추어 신청한 것이라고 보아 이를 수리하지 아니하고 반려하였음은 위 법령에 위배되어 위법하다고 판단하고 있는바, 기록에 의하여 살펴보니 원심의 사실인정과 판단은 정당하여 긍인되고 거기에 소론 주장과 같은 심리미진 아니면 판단유탈, 채증법칙 위배의 위법이 없다. 논지는 이유없다.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)