[1] The method of filing an administrative appeal

[2] The case holding that a request for administrative appeal should be made in case where a document was submitted to the effect that the local government cannot pay indemnity for the reason that the local government did not occupy the land as a title

[1] Since a claim for administrative appeal is a document act that does not require strict form, if a person whose rights or interests have been infringed due to an illegal or unjust disposition by an administrative agency submits to the administrative agency a document seeking cancellation or change of the disposition, it is reasonable to view it as an administrative appeal, regardless of the title or form in writing.

[2] The case holding that a request for administrative appeal should be made in case where a document was submitted to the effect that the local government cannot pay indemnity for the reason that the local government did not possess the land as a ticket

[1] Articles 17, 19, and 23 of the Administrative Appeals Act, Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 17, 19, and 23 of the Administrative Appeals Act, Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu19194 delivered on June 29, 1993 (Gong1993, 2166), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu16250 delivered on September 5, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3410), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12852 delivered on November 10, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3931), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14067 delivered on February 11, 1997 (Gong197, 782)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Bree, Attorneys Park Sung-deok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorney Ansan-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu41054 delivered on January 14, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Since a claim for administrative appeal is a document act that does not require strict form, if a person whose rights or interests are infringed by an administrative agency’s unlawful or unjust disposition submits to the administrative agency a document seeking cancellation or modification of such disposition, it is reasonable to view it as a claim for administrative appeal regardless of the title or form in writing (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14067, Feb. 11, 1997).

In this case, the defendant imposed indemnity on the plaintiff 1 on November 29, 1994 on the ground that the above plaintiff occupied the land of this case owned by Seoul Special Metropolitan City without permission, and the plaintiff submitted a letter to the defendant on December 17, 199 "Written Answer" to the defendant on December 17, 194, stating that the above land cannot be paid indemnity because it did not occupy the above land, since the disposition agency as the respondent and the claimant did not have possession of the above land, and there is the name and seal of the claimant, and the contents of the administrative disposition that is the object of the request for adjudication, and the purport of the request for adjudication and the reasons are known.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it does not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the above plaintiff occupied 136.5 square meters of land in Seocho-gu, Seoul ( Address omitted) among the land in this case is correct, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and thus, the ground of appeal

3. There is no assertion in the grounds of appeal against the plaintiff 2.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)