"Justifiable grounds" under the proviso of Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act and a request for administrative appeal by a third party.

Even if a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition did not file a request for a trial within the period of request under Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, it shall be interpreted that it falls under the case where there are justifiable grounds for not complying with the period prescribed in the proviso of Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, unless there

Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu59 Delivered on July 12, 1983

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Sam Pung Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu164 delivered on November 26, 1987

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, the defendant as of December 24, 1985, as of December 24, 1985, issued a disposition to approve the completion of river structure installation works to the defendant joining the defendant. On August 22, 1986, the plaintiff knew that the disposition of this case was taken, and filed the lawsuit of this case on September 13, 1986, after receiving a ruling on it on December 8, 1987.

2. However, on September 13, 1986, the court below rejected the lawsuit of this case, on the ground that, even if the plaintiff submitted a written request for an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the above authorization of completion to the defendant, it was filed eight months or more after the date of the above administrative disposition, and there is no evidence that there is any justifiable reason for the failure of the plaintiff to observe the period of the request for administrative appeal, the lawsuit of this case is an illegal lawsuit which is not in compliance

3. The main sentence of Article 18(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that "an appeal shall be filed within 60 days from the date on which a disposition is known," and Article 18(3) provides that "an appeal shall not be filed after the lapse of 180 days from the date on which the disposition is taken: Provided, That this shall not apply where any justifiable ground exists," and Articles 18(1) and 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provide that "an appeal shall be filed after the lapse of 180 days from the date on which the disposition is taken."

Since the original other party's administrative disposition takes effect upon notification to the other party, it is possible for the other party to immediately know of the disposition by the notification, and the other party can make a request for administrative appeal within the period prescribed by the above Administrative Appeals Act, but the third party's request for administrative appeal is in fact difficult within 180 days from the date of the administrative disposition, unless there are special circumstances.

Therefore, in order to open a way to substantially receive a remedy for infringement of rights against a third party, even if the request for a trial is not made within the period of the request under Article 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, barring any special circumstance that the request for a trial is possible within the period of the request, it shall be deemed that there is a justifiable reason that the request for a trial is not made within the period of the request (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu59 delivered on July 12, 1983). Such interpretation shall be appropriate for both the period of a request for a trial and the period of a lawsuit to extend the period of a request for a trial for the sake of the protection of citizens' rights, while the Administrative Appeals Act and the Administrative Litigation Act (repealed on October 1, 1985) recognize a third party participation system (Article 16) and the Administrative Litigation Act recognizes a third party participation system (Article 16) and a request for a trial by a third party (Article 31).

4. Therefore, the court below should have judged the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case by examining whether the plaintiff did not comply with the period of the request for administrative appeal of this case, but there is no reasonable ground for failing to observe the period of the request for administrative appeal of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the period of the request for administrative appeal of this case and the procedure of the preceding trial, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

5. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)