The institution which provides the basis for calculating the period of filing a lawsuit;

According to Article 2 (1) of the Sub-Appellant Act, a plaintiff is filed with a superior administrative agency via the disposition agency, and according to Article 3 (2) of the same Act, if the submission agency is wrong or defective in the form of the director, the plaintiff must transfer the plaintiff to the legitimate agency or return the cause to the legitimate agency by determining the period for correction. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the plaintiff complies with the period for submission to the disposition agency within the statutory period.

Article 3 of the Sub-Appeal Act

Plaintiff 1 and 104 others, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Msan-si, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 75Gu59 delivered on December 29, 1977

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case was dismissed because the plaintiffs' notice of the administrative disposition of this case was received on May 19, 1975 and the plaintiff's lawsuit was filed on June 23 of the same year. Thus, the court below rejected the lawsuit of this case because the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is illegal without legitimate source of lawsuit.

In light of the records, the plaintiffs sought the revocation of the declaration of invalidation because the disposition of imposing liquidation money is null and void as a matter of course in this case, and seek the revocation of the disposition as it is unlawful and unfair if it is not possible, the plaintiffs' claim for revocation of this case must have any of its claim or transfer procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 75Nu128, Feb. 24, 1976). Thus, the argument on this point among the second points of the argument of appeal is groundless.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 19 (Written Confirmation) and evidence Nos. 7-1 through 105 (each written objection) of this case, the plaintiffs submitted a written objection to the effect that the defendant, who is the disposition administrative agency, will be aware of the fact that he received the disposition of this case on May 19, 1976 and the notice of imposition of the liquidation amount of this case on May 27, 1976 was served. According to Article 2(1) of the Action Act, the plaintiff is allowed to file a suit with a superior administrative agency via the disposition administrative agency, and according to Article 3(2) of the Claimant Act, if the submission agency is erroneous or defective in the form of the director, the plaintiff must transfer the suit to the legitimate submission agency or return it to the cause of the lawsuit by setting the

In light of the purport of the above provisions, it is reasonable to interpret that the plaintiff complies with the period if the plaintiff submitted to the disposition agency within the statutory period. Therefore, even though the above written objection submitted by the plaintiffs to the defendant who is the disposition administrative agency can be viewed as a source of lawsuit under Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the plaintiffs did not go through the original procedure, and the court below's rejection of the lawsuit by the plaintiffs is an unlawful act in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the plaintiff. Thus, the first ground for appeal pointing this out is justified, and therefore the judgment of the court below is not exempt

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is omitted, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)