2013Nu48349 Confirmation of illegality of omission

A

Chairman General

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap5111 Decided September 12, 2013

July 1, 2014

August 19, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The decision is revoked, and it is confirmed that Article 15 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act is violated if the defendant notified by telephone and did not notify the result of treatment in writing with respect to civil petitions filed by the plaintiff to the defendant on June 26, 2009.

2. Purport of appeal

On June 26, 2009, the judgment of the court of first instance revoked, and the judgment confirming that the defendant's failure to notify the result of treatment to the defendant is a violation of Article 15 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (the plaintiff stated that it is not the purport of seeking the revocation of the judgment itself in the trial).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of Paragraph 3, which is the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part that has been cut (3. Judgment);

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant responded to the plaintiff's civil petition itself, which was filed on June 26, 2009, without notifying the result of treatment.

On July 22, 2009, the civil petition of this case is seeking documents on the basis of classification of medical care grade against the National Health Insurance Corporation, requiring the Corporation to provide information to the Corporation that retains and manages the information pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it is not possible to file a request for information disclosure with the Defendant that does not hold and manage the civil petition of this case. Thus, the civil petition of this case is not a matter of duty of the Board of Audit and Inspection, but it is sufficient to resolve the civil petition by oral or written guidance. Meanwhile, on June 29, 2009, the Plaintiff filed the civil petition of this case with the Defendant on July 29, 2009, and the Defendant explained that the document on the basis of grading should be applied to the Plaintiff on the request for information disclosure. However, on July 23, 2009, the Plaintiff received the same purport as the Defendant’s response to the civil petition of this case by phone, and the Plaintiff did not reply to the same purport.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, but the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be modified disadvantageous to the plaintiff in this case where only the plaintiff appealed. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall admonish a judge;

Judgment's normal rules

Judges Go Il-il