The effect that the president of the suit submits directly superior administrative agency without going through the administrative agency within the statutory period;

The filing of a suit directly filed with a superior administrative agency without going through the disposition administrative agency is legitimate.

Articles 2, 3, and 3 of the source Act

Gin Tae and three others (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 62Gu149 delivered on December 20, 1962

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are jointly borne by the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ agent Han-man’s grounds of appeal.

(1) As to ground of appeal No. 1

The plaintiffs filed a petition against the non-party, the non-party's non-party's answer that the defendant is living together with the Dong-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri- the plaintiff's application and filed a petition with the Director of the Central Information Department on November 6, 1961, which was known on December 1, 1961, and the Central Information Department had a broad power to supervise the overall administrative affairs of Korea, so the submission of a petition

(2) As to the second ground for appeal

In general, even if the petition was submitted to the superior administrative agency without going through the disposition administrative agency, if it comes to the statutory period, it shall be deemed a legitimate filing. In this case, the plaintiffs submitted the petition to the head of the Central Information Department within the prescribed statutory period, and since this document was received to the Minister of Home Affairs later, the plaintiff's petition shall be deemed lawful. The plaintiff's petition shall be returned to the Minister of Home Affairs within the prescribed statutory period. The plaintiff's petition shall be deemed legitimate even if it was submitted to the superior administrative agency without going through the disposition administrative agency, it shall be deemed a legitimate filing of the suit. The defendant's petition shall not be deemed a superior administrative agency. However, according to the Gap 6-1 evidence adopted by the court below, it is evident that the petition submitted by the plaintiff was returned to the Minister of Home Affairs, which is the defendant's superior administrative agency at the time of the court below. Thus, even if one month has passed after the plaintiffs had become aware that it had already been an administrative disposition, it shall not affect the decision of the court below.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is without merit, and all appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are jointly borne by the plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)