[1] Conditions under which an administrative agency’s rejection of a citizen’s application may be an administrative disposition subject to appeal

[2] Whether the response of the administrative agency, which rejected the request for correction of name of the school juristic person founder, constitutes a rejection disposition subject to appeal (negative)

[1] If an administrative agency’s refusal of a citizen’s application for active action constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the agency’s refusal should be an exercise of public authority or an equivalent administrative action, and the refusal should cause a change in the applicant’s legal relationship, and the citizen should have the right to request the action in accordance with the relevant law or sound reasoning.

[2] It is interpreted that the private school law does not have any provision concerning the correction of the name or change of the name of the founder of the school juristic person, and that the founder of the school juristic person does not have any legal status with respect to the already established school juristic person. Thus, it cannot be said that the correction of the name or change of name of the school juristic person is an exercise of public authority or an equivalent administrative action, or that the refusal may cause any change in the applicant's legal relationship, and therefore, the reply which refused to apply for the correction of the name of the founder of a

[1] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition], 2, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 10, 25, and 26 (2) of the Private School Act; Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition], 2, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Nu227 delivered on October 23, 1984 (Gong1984, 1858), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5348 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 291), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13081 delivered on May 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 186), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu5612 delivered on February 24, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 914)

Bacheon-Sacheon-Sacheon-Saeol Association (Attorney Kim Jae-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The superintendent of the Office of Education (Attorney Information Institute)

The deceased Intervenor 1 et al. and six others (Attorneys Yellow-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu10398 delivered on August 28, 1996

The judgment of the court below is reversed. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party, established by the permission of the establishment of June 26, 1969 and the registration of the establishment of July 7, 1969, applied for the correction of the name of the founder as the non-party stated in the written permission for establishment, etc. under the administrative error even though the founder of the non-party school foundation established by the registration of the establishment of the non-party ○○○○○ was the non-party, but received the reply of this case from the defendant on November 5, 1994 that the non-party rejected it, and determined that the above ○○○○○○○ was illegal since the non-party is recognized as the non-party.

However, in order for an administrative agency to deny an application for active action of a citizen to constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, the application must be an exercise of public authority or other equivalent administrative action, and the refusal should cause any change in the applicant’s legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu5348, Dec. 12, 1989; 96Nu5612, Feb. 24, 1998); and the citizen must have the right to demand the withdrawal of such action under the law or sound reasoning (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu27, Oct. 23, 1984; 95Nu13081, May 14, 196; 205Nu27, supra; 3081, Apr. 14, 1996; 206Nu26, a private school foundation does not have any provision concerning the change in its name or name, and thus, it does not constitute an action of a founder or a certain school foundation.

Despite the legal principles, the court below judged that the reply of this case constitutes a rejection disposition subject to appeal litigation, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the rejection disposition subject to appeal litigation.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is dismissed as a member of the party concerned is sufficient to decide on the facts established by the court below, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)