Whether a request for examination under Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act falls under the procedure of an administrative litigation.

The request for examination as referred to in Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act is merely the purport of having a person interested in the administrative act of the person subject to the audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection to assist in the performance of the duties of the Board of Audit and Inspection by having the Board of Audit and Inspection examine whether or not the administrative act is lawful or not, and the procedure of the request for examination shall not be considered as

Article 18 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 37 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5528 delivered on October 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 2443) 90Nu794 delivered on February 26, 1991 (Gong191, 1118) 92Nu5294 delivered on March 9, 193 (Gong193Sang, 1174)

Plaintiff

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu13850 delivered on October 29, 1993

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

Before determining the grounds of appeal, this paper examined ex officio.

According to Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, in order to file a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition, a person who is dissatisfied with the purchase price due to the imposition and collection of the excess of the housing site or the request for purchase can file an administrative appeal with the Central Land Expropriation Committee pursuant to the Land Expropriation Act. Thus, the principle of administrative trial prior to the administrative litigation of the revocation of the disposition imposing the excess of the housing site, such as this case, shall apply to the administrative litigation of the revocation of the disposition imposing the excess of the housing site.

According to the records, after receiving the disposition of this case on August 31, 1992, the plaintiff filed a request for examination under Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act on December 3, 1992, but the request for examination was dismissed on April 20, 1993, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on June 2, 1992.

However, the request for examination under the provisions of Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act is merely a mere purport of allowing a person interested in an administrative act committed by the person subject to the audit and inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection to assist in the Board of Audit and Inspection in performing its duties by examining whether the above administrative act is lawful or not, and to improve the operation of the Board of Audit and Inspection. The above procedure for the request for examination cannot be seen as a prior trial procedure of administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu5294 delivered on March 9, 1993 and Supreme Court Decision 90Nu528 delivered on October 26, 1990)

Therefore, even though the court below should have examined whether there was any defect in the pre-trial procedure prior to the judgment on the merits, it should be seen as it is and tried and judged on the merits, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the pre-trial procedure of administrative litigation.

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and remand this case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)