In the administrative litigation of a third party who is not the other party to the administrative disposition, the principle of sub-delivery.

Even if a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, did not institute a suit within the exclusion period prescribed by the former Sub-Action Act (repealed on October 1, 1985), it shall be deemed that there is a justifiable reason not to institute a suit prescribed by the latter part of the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 3754 of Dec. 15, 1984), and may directly institute an administrative suit without going through the procedure of the suit, except in cases where there is a special reason that the third party would have been able to institute a suit within the exclusion period.

Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu59 Delivered on July 12, 1983

[Judgment of the court below]

Do Governor of Gyeonggi-do;

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu158 delivered on May 28, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the First Ground:

Even if a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, did not institute a suit within the exclusion period prescribed by the former Sub-Action Act (repealed on October 1, 1985), he/she may directly institute an administrative lawsuit without going through the original procedure, by deeming that it falls under a case where there is a justifiable reason not to institute a suit through the source prescribed in the latter part of Article 2 (1) of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by December 15, 1984). However, this shall not apply to cases where there is a special reason that the third party would have been able to institute a suit within the exclusion period

This is because, unless there are special circumstances, a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, is in danger of being aware of the existence of an administrative disposition, and in such a case, it may be deemed that there is a justifiable reason not to pass through the source within the exclusion period as provided by the above source law, but if the third party knew that an administrative disposition was taken and could bring an action within the period as provided by the law, it is not necessary to protect the third party on the ground that there is a justifiable reason even in such a case. Therefore, even if the plaintiff was aware of the administrative disposition as of March 15, 1985 and that there was a peremptory period for filing a lawsuit, if the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on September 2, 1985, which was later than the expiration of the said period, it shall be deemed as an illegal source in violation of the mandatory provision (the Supreme Court Decision 83Nu59 delivered on July 12, 1983) does not change the above interpretation.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the administrative disposition of this case was known on May 3, 1985 (No. 158 of the records), and that the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit of this case was a substantial fact on May 29 of the same year, and that the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit of this case was an obvious fact on the records of this case, and based on the document No. 3-2 (Written Ruling) and then acknowledged that the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit of this case was filed on September 2 of the same year, and therefore, the plaintiff was a plaintiff who filed the lawsuit of this case beyond the peremptory period as provided by Article 3

As alleged above, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on ex officio investigation and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the lower court’s measures.

With respect to the third point:

As long as the court below determined that the plaintiff was illegal in accordance with the above investigation and examination as to the legitimacy of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case, although the plaintiff newly filed a petition within the period of filing the lawsuit of this case with the defendant and the Minister of Home Affairs, which stated the purport of objection against the administrative disposition of this case, and attached materials related thereto, and the court below did not ex officio investigate the above reasons, which were not presented until the closing of the court below's argument, it did not cause any error. The argument is groundless.

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

Justices O Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)