A. Whether the principle of administrative appeals transfer is applied to a lawsuit seeking revocation of revocation of disposition of vicarious execution (affirmative)

B. Whether a request for examination under Article 43(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act constitutes the procedure of an administrative litigation prior to trial (negative)

C. Whether a revocation suit can be filed immediately without filing an administrative appeal, in cases where an urgent need exists to prevent a serious damage caused by the enforcement of a prior disposition (negative)

A. In the administrative litigation of revocation of disposition of revocation of vicarious execution, the principle of administrative appeal transfer is applied, and Article 8 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act does not affect any of the above legal principles.

B. The request for examination under the provisions of Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act is merely the purport of having a person interested in administrative act committed by the person subject to the audit and inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection to assist in the performance of duties and to improve the operation of administration by having the Board of Audit and Inspection examine whether or not the said administrative act is lawful or not, so the above procedure for the request for examination shall not be deemed to fall

C. Even if there was an urgent need to prevent a serious loss caused by the execution of an order for dismissal, this means that a lawsuit for revocation may be brought immediately without going through an adjudication in accordance with Article 18(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, not the purport that a lawsuit for revocation may be brought even without filing an administrative appeal itself.

Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 7 and Article 8 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act; Article 43(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu477 delivered on October 22, 1985 (Gong1985,1557). Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1608 delivered on November 22, 198 (Gong1989,32). Supreme Court Decision 86Nu215 delivered on July 8, 1986 (Gong1986,1014)

Attorneys Kim Young-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The head of Gangdong-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu14825 delivered on May 23, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

ex officio deemed.

According to Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, in order to file a lawsuit seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, it shall go through an administrative appeal first in accordance with the so-called principle of administrative appeals, and Article 7 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act provides that an administrative appeal may be filed with respect to the vicarious execution. As such, the principle of administrative appeals transfer shall also apply to the administrative litigation over the revocation of disposition imposing the vicarious execution of this case

See Supreme Court Decision 84Nu477 delivered on October 22, 1985

According to the records, after the plaintiff was subject to the disposition of the dismissal of this case on September 18, 1989, the Board of Audit and Inspection made a request for examination under Article 43(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act on September 25, 1989, but the request for examination was filed on October 31, 1989, respectively, but the lawsuit of this case was filed on November 29, 1989.

However, the request for examination under the provisions of Article 43 (1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act is merely the purport of allowing a person interested in the administrative act of the person subject to the audit and inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection to assist in the performance of the duties of the Board of Audit and Inspection and to improve the administrative operation by examining the legitimacy or validity of the above administrative act.

Therefore, the procedure of the above request for review cannot be seen as falling under the pre-trial procedure of administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1608 delivered on November 22, 198).

In addition, even though there was an urgent need to prevent significant damage caused by the execution of the above-mentioned measures against the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, this means that a revocation lawsuit may be brought immediately without going through a ruling pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and it does not mean that a revocation lawsuit may be brought even without filing an administrative appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu215, Jul. 8, 1986; 86Nu215, Jul. 8, 1986), and Article 8 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act does not affect the legal principles that the

Therefore, although the court below should first examine whether there was any defect in the pre-trial procedure prior to the judgment on the merits, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the pre-trial procedure of administrative litigation by entering the main text and examining and determining it.

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)