(영문) 광주지방법원 2021.1.21. 선고 2020구합12865 판결

B. After conducting an audit of the instant school, on March 3, 2020, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the request for disposition, including the Plaintiff’s demand for warning to the Plaintiff’s teacher B (hereinafter “instant notification”), and the Plaintiff received the instant notice on March 4, 2020.

C. On March 26, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Defendant under Article 25 of the Public Audit Act and Article 16 of the self-audit regulations of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Office of Education, and the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on April 13, 2020 following deliberation by the Audit Council.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A. According to the proviso of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, in a case where a request for an administrative appeal is possible, the period when the original written adjudication is served shall be counted from the date when the original written adjudication is served. The term "administrative appeal" refers to a special administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act and a special administrative appeal in a case where a special administrative appeal procedure instead of a general administrative appeal is prescribed in other Acts because it is especially necessary in order to consider the specialty and specificity of a case. The application for re-deliberation of the Act on Public Sector Audits and the self-audit regulations of the Office of Education of Gwangju Metropolitan City is a procedure that allows the head of the central administrative agency, etc. who conducted the self-audit to directly re-examine whether the audit results or the requirements therefor are legitimate and reasonable. Since the procedure is entirely different from the administrative appeal, the term of filing a lawsuit cannot be applied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du10809, Apr. 24, 2014).

B. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the Plaintiff applied for a retrial, the starting point of the filing period under Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act is the time when the Plaintiff became aware of each of the dispositions in this case, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit only after the lapse of 90 days from March 4, 2020, when the Plaintiff was aware of the disposition in this case after being served with a written disposition stating the purport of the instant disposition, and only after July 14, 2020, when the Plaintiff became aware of the disposition in this case, the instant lawsuit was filed. Therefore, it is unlawful

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.