[1] The meaning of "administrative appeal" under Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act

[2] In a case where Gap Metropolitan City Superintendent of the Office of Education conducted a specific audit of Byung High School operated by Eul, pursuant to the Public Audit Act, etc., and thereafter requested disciplinary action against the principal and employees of Byung School; and where Eul corporation filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disposition after its objection was rejected, the case affirming the judgment below that the above lawsuit was unlawful, counting from the date when Eul was deemed to have been aware of the above disposition, as the period for filing the lawsuit was determined to be unlawful

[1] According to Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a litigation seeking revocation is instituted within 90 days after a disposition is known. In a case where an appeal is filed, the period when the appeal is filed shall begin from the day when the authentic copy of the written judgment is served. In light of the legislative intent of promoting the stability and prompt confirmation of legal relations surrounding the disposition, etc. by limiting the period of filing a lawsuit seeking revocation, the term “administrative appeal” refers to a special administrative appeal in cases where a special procedure for general administrative appeals under the Administrative Appeals Act and its special cases are prescribed in other Acts in lieu of the general administrative appeal (Article 4 of the Administrative Appeals Act).

[2] Where the Superintendent of an Office of Education in the Metropolitan City A conducted a specific audit on a high school operated by the school foundation Eul pursuant to the Public Audit Act (hereinafter “Public Audit Act”), and then Eul filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disposition as the case was dismissed, the case affirming the judgment below that the above lawsuit was unlawful, based on the period for filing a lawsuit, based on the following reasons: (a) the application for a retrial under the Public Audit Act and the objection under the Administrative Audit Regulations of the Office of Education in the former Metropolitan City A filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disposition; (b) the application for a retrial under the Public Audit Act and the procedure allowing the head of the central administrative agency, etc. who conducted the self-audit to review whether the pertinent request is legitimate or unreasonable; and (c) the special case for filing a lawsuit is not applicable to the case where the appeal was filed; (d) the date of notification of the result

[1] Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 4 of the Administrative Appeals Act / [2] Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 25 of the Public Audit Act

○○ Private Teaching Institute (Attorney Lee Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju Metropolitan City superintendent of education (Attorney Jeong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2013Nu368 decided April 25, 2013

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a litigation seeking revocation shall be instituted within 90 days from the day on which a disposition is known. In a case where a request for administrative appeal is possible, the period from the day on which the original copy of the written judgment is served. In light of the legislative intent of promoting the stability and prompt confirmation of legal relations surrounding a disposition, etc. by limiting the period of filing a lawsuit seeking revocation, the “administrative appeal” referred to in this context means a special administrative appeal (Article 4 of the Administrative Appeals Act) where a special administrative appeal procedure instead of the general administrative appeal is prescribed by other Acts, which is a special case for the sake of considering the specialty and peculiarity of a case under the Administrative Appeals Act, by limiting the period of filing a lawsuit seeking revocation.

2. The lower court: (a) conducted a specific audit of △△△ High School operated by the Plaintiff in accordance with the Administrative Audit Regulations of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Office of Education (amended by the Education Directive No. 113, Apr. 1, 2012; hereinafter “instant Audit Regulations”); (b) on September 7, 2011, ordered the Plaintiff to take disciplinary action against the principal of the school and his/her employees; (c) on September 8, 201, the Plaintiff received the instant disposition and filed an objection against the Defendant on October 6, 2011; (d) rejected the instant disposition on December 23, 2011; and (e) acknowledged that the Defendant filed an objection against the instant disposition, which was lawful as the result of the Plaintiff’s request for review or re-adjudication of the instant disposition under the Non-Audit Regulations, and determined that the instant disposition was unlawful as the result of the Plaintiff’s request for review or re-adjudication of the instant case’s request for review.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the relevant provisions regarding a request for review under the Public Audit Act and the filing of objections under the audit regulations of this case, such judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)