[1] Requirements for an administrative agency’s rejection of a citizen’s application to serve as an administrative disposition that is the subject of an appeal

[2] The case holding that an applicant for the appointment of a national or public university faculty member has no right under the law or sound reasoning to respond to an application for the appointment to the appointment authority

[1] If an administrative agency’s rejection of a citizen’s petition constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the administrative agency’s right to request the action must be the citizen. If an administrative agency does not accept a citizen’s petition without such right to request, the rejection does not affect the applicant’s right or legal interest, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation.

[2] The case holding that an applicant for the appointment of a national or public university faculty member has no right under the law or sound reasoning to respond to the appointment of the appointment authority

[1] Article 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 11 and 26 of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 6400 of Nov. 29, 2001), Article 4-3 of the former Public Educational Officials Appointment Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17009 of Nov. 28, 200)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Nu227 delivered on October 23, 198 (Gong1984, 1858) Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5348 delivered on December 12, 198 (Gong1990, 291) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu491 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 1442), 92Nu7542 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993, 470, 470; 91Nu29629 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong1969, 470) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9627 delivered on April 28, 195 (Gong1995, 1965)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee In-dam, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

President of the Gyeongbuk National University;

Daegu High Court Decision 2002Nu982 delivered on November 22, 2002

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

1. If an administrative agency’s refusal against a citizen’s application constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the administrative agency’s right to request an action must be the citizen. If an administrative agency does not accept a citizen’s application without such right to request, the refusal does not affect the applicant’s right or legal interest, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu3654, Apr. 25, 1997; 96Nu14036, Jul. 10, 198, etc.).

However, whether an appointment authority for a national or public university faculty member is to appoint an appointment applicant as a university faculty member or not belongs to a free discretion based on the determination by the appointment authority. Thus, barring any special circumstance to deem that an appointment applicant does not have the right to request the appointment authority to appoint himself/herself, and that he/she has the legal interest in the appointment, it cannot be deemed that he/she has the right under the law or sound reasoning to request a response to the appointment

2. According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff passed the examination of the document examination committee, the department examination committee, and the university personnel committee's own examination in braille, but the plaintiff was merely a person who received notification from the defendant on October 30, 200 that he would refuse to appoint a teacher on the basis of the recommendation for employment of university public bonds mediation committee (hereinafter referred to as "the notification of this case") under Article 11 of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 4-3 of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16564 of Sep. 30, 199), and Article 4-3 of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16564 of Sep. 30, 199) and the guidelines for the examination of appointment of full-time teachers on the appointment of a teacher on the appointment of a teacher on the university or public bonds of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's right to request the appointment of a new teacher on the appointment of the university or public bonds of this case can not be notified.

The court below's reasoning is somewhat insufficient, but it is just in its conclusion that the defendant's notice of this case does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)