It is wrong that the marking, such as the coordinate, is wrong;

If a document which does not require strict forms is submitted to the disposition administrative agency for the cancellation or modification of illegal administrative disposition within the statutory period because it is a document act which does not require strict forms, the document must be regarded as a source under Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, regardless of its title and representation.

Articles 2(1) and 3(3) of the Sub-Appellant Act; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Nu113-118 Decided January 25, 1966

Attorney Nam Chang-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Msan Market

Daegu High Court Decision 80Gu32 delivered on August 19, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 2(1) of the source of a lawsuit, a plaintiff is filed with a superior administrative agency via the disposition administrative agency. However, according to Article 3(3) of the source of a lawsuit, if the submission agency of a lawsuit is wrong or defective in the form of the director, the plaintiff must transfer the plaintiff to the legitimate submission agency or return the plaintiff to the cause by designating the correction period. In light of Article 3(3) of the source of a lawsuit, if the plaintiff submits a document to the effect that he/she seeks cancellation or change of the disposition to the administrative agency within the statutory period from a person whose rights or interests have been infringed due to illegal or unjust administrative disposition is interpreted as a document act which does not require strict form, such document shall be deemed as a plaintiff under Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, regardless of its title and representation (see Supreme Court Decision 65Nu113-118, Jan. 25,

However, although the document submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant, who is the disposition administrative agency, used the term that the defendant requires the withdrawal of the disposition to cancel the construction permit of this case, its purpose is to be viewed as the content of the disposition to cancel the above disposition, and therefore, it constitutes a lawsuit under Article 2 of the Won Won Law. Therefore, the judgment below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the lawsuit.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the plaintiff failed to commence construction within one year after obtaining the permission of extension in this case on July 24, 1978 because on March 15, 1979, the plaintiff filed an application for provisional disposition of prohibition of construction by asserting the ownership of the land, the extension of which was permitted by non-party Gangseo-gu et al. and 27 persons, and the execution of the provisional disposition was made. The court below determined that the plaintiff's revocation of the permission was an abuse of discretionary authority on the ground that the plaintiff's revocation of the permission was not an abuse of discretionary authority, since the court below's determination on whether the plaintiff reported to the defendant that the provisional disposition of prohibition of construction had been made on the ground that there was no ground to affect the judgment of the court below as to this point, and that there was no error of incomplete deliberation by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed for lack of merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)