The starting date of the period of request for review or the period of filing a lawsuit against the administrative litigation according to the re-examination decision by the ruling authority (=date of receipt);

[Majority Opinion] A re-audit decision that takes place in practice as a type of the decision on the objection filing, etc. takes the form of re-auditing the matters pointed out in the relevant decision on the whole or part of a single taxation unit to rectify the tax base and tax amount or to maintain the initial disposition according to the result. Accordingly, only after receiving the notice of a subsequent disposition following the re-audit decision, the applicant, etc. who received the notice of the re-audit decision can specify the subject and scope of objection in the next stage litigation procedure. Considering the form and purport of the re-audit decision, and the unique nature of tax-related laws that include autonomous administrative control and complicated and professional and technical nature of the administrative appeals system, the re-audit decision should be deemed as a modified decision in which the agency intended to take part of the decision on the subsequent disposition as part of the decision on the objection filing, etc. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the re-audit decision becomes effective as a decision on the objection filing period or the period for filing a subsequent appeal, etc. according to the re-audit decision.

[Concurring Opinion by Justice Kim Young-ran, Justice Yang Sung-tae, and Justice Ahn Dai-hee] The re-examination decision should be deemed to be merely an internal order ordering the agency to re-audit for efficient deliberation of the case. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a decision on the objection, etc., and it cannot be deemed that the subsequent disposition takes effect. Therefore, even if the decision on re-audit or subsequent disposition was notified to the claimant, etc., the ruling agency should not proceed with the request period, etc. until the written objection, etc. is notified.

Articles 56(3), 61(2), 65(1), 66(6), 68(2), and 81 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007);

Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10768 Decided October 24, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3681) (amended) Supreme Court Decision 98Du3211 Decided May 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1812) (amended) Supreme Court Decision 99Du1021 Decided May 28, 199 (amended) Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2837 Decided May 10, 2007 (amended) Supreme Court Decision 2005Du3585 Decided October 26, 2007 (amended))

Plaintiff (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys So-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Head of Yangcheon Tax Office (Law Firm Doll, Attorneys Dog-Jun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Nu26495 decided May 22, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Articles 65(1), 66(6), and 81 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “Framework Act on National Taxes”) provide that “when an objection, etc. is filed after the period for filing the objection or the period for filing the objection expires or when necessary correction is not made within the given period for filing the objection, etc., a decision dismissing such objection or request shall be made; when an objection, etc. is deemed groundless, a decision dismissing such objection or request shall be made; when an objection, etc. is deemed groundless, a decision dismissing the application or request; when an objection, etc. is deemed reasonable, a decision revoking or correcting the disposition which becomes the object of the application or request, or a necessary disposition shall be made; and Articles 56(3) and 61(2) and 68(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes shall be filed within 90 days after receipt of notice of the decision on the period for filing the objection, or the period for filing the administrative litigation.”

However, the re-assessment decision, which is conducted in practice as a type of the decision on the objection filing, takes the form of re-auditing the matters pointed out in the relevant decision on all or part of a single taxation unit to correct the tax base and tax amount or to maintain the initial disposition according to the result. Accordingly, the subject and scope of the objection in the next stage can be specified only after the notification of the subsequent disposition is received.

Considering the form and purport of the re-audit decision, and the unique characteristics of the tax and legal relationship with the autonomous administrative control function and complicated and professional character of the administrative appeal system, the re-audit decision can only be seen as a modified decision with the intent of considering the results of re-audit of the disposition agency on the matters pointed out in the decision in question and making it part of the decision on the objection, etc.

Therefore, the re-audit decision shall take effect as a decision on the objection, etc. by supplementing the contents of the re-audit decision by the follow-up disposition of the agency. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the period of the request for review, the period of the request for adjudgment or the period of the administrative litigation is calculated

Unlike this, Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10768 Decided October 24, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 98Du3211 Decided May 26, 1998; Supreme Court Decision 99Du1021 Decided May 28, 1999; Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2837 Decided May 10, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2005Du3585 Decided October 26, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16403 Decided May 28, 2009; etc.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on June 29, 2005, the plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition imposing the value-added tax of this case with the defendant on July 27, 2005, and the defendant made the re-investigation decision of this case on July 27, 2005, and thereafter, the defendant made a follow-up disposition that maintains the disposition imposing the value-added tax of this case on the ground that the plaintiff et al. did not present the data to reverse the original investigation results, and notified the plaintiff on October 24, 2005. The plaintiff filed the request for re-examination of this case with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant request for review is lawful as it was filed within 90 days from October 24, 2005, on which the Plaintiff was notified of the follow-up disposition in accordance with the re-examination decision of this case by the Defendant.

C. Therefore, the decision of the court below to reject the defendant's defense that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the request for review of this case was not filed within a lawful period is just, and there is no error of law as to the initial date of the period for review

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

This part of the grounds of appeal is nothing more than an error in the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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, except there is a separate opinion by Justice Kim Young, Justice Yang Sung, and Justice Ahn Dai-hee, and a concurrence with the Majority by Justice Lee Hong-hoon.

4. Concurrence by Justice Kim Young-ran, Justice Yang Sung-tae, and Justice Ahn Dai-hee

A. Under the premise that a decision of reinvestigation is valid as a decision on the objection, etc., the Majority Opinion deems that the decision of reinvestigation takes effect as a decision on the objection, etc. by supplementing the contents thereof by the subsequent disposition of the relevant disposition agency. However, the period for requesting a review according to the decision of reinvestigation is calculated from the date when the petitioner, etc. received the notification of the subsequent disposition. However, the Majority’s premise that the decision of reinvestigation is valid as a decision on the objection

Unlike other administrative dispositions, a decision on a formal objection, etc. is a judgment act conducted in relation to a dispute, and its essence is quasi-judicial act, and thus, it must be determined to settle the dispute concerned. However, a decision on a reinvestigation lacks final decision on the factual relations or legal relations subject to dispute. In addition, in the case of a request for examination or adjudgment, a higher agency or an independent inquiry agency has to make an appropriate decision after examining whether it is illegal or unreasonable in relation to the disposition of the disposition taken by the disposition agency which is an institution subject to review, and the decision on a reinvestigation to the disposition agency does not coincide with the nature of the review or adjudication. The Majority Opinion states that a decision on a reinvestigation on the ground of autonomous administrative control function, etc. of the administrative appeals system is a kind of modified decision, which has the intent to take part of the decision on the subsequent disposition as part of the decision on the formal objection, etc., but in light of the purport of the administrative appeals system, it is difficult to accept as it is beyond the nature of the decision or its independence.

In the tax administrative litigation, the procedure for a prior trial against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the Director of the National Tax Tribunal requires either a request for examination against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or a request for adjudgment against the Director of the National Tax Tribunal. However, prior to such a request for examination or adjudgment, an objection may be raised to the head of the tax office or the director of the regional tax office who made the relevant disposition. As seen in the instant case, if the original disposition agency received an objection, made a re-examination, made a decision on re-examination, and thereafter made a subsequent disposition, and made a request for examination or a request for adjudgment to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, it may be deemed as a decision on the subsequent disposition of the disposition agency on the ground of the autonomous administrative control function of the administrative appeal,

The majority opinion argues that the special nature of tax legal relations complicated and professional and technical nature is one of the logic of the tax authority, but if the tax authority orders the agency to conduct a reinvestigation due to the above difficulties, it can make a direct final judgment according to the results of the reinvestigation, but it is difficult to recognize the need to make a subsequent disposition of the agency as part of the decision on the objection, etc. of the agency.It is difficult to recognize that the agency does not make a final decision based on the results of reinvestigation, rather than on the premise that the agency does not make a final decision based on the results of reinvestigation itself itself, it cannot be deemed that the subsequent disposition of the agency is part of the decision on the objection, etc. or supplementation of the contents thereof. According to the taxation practice, the National Tax Tribunal re-determines the determination by deeming the tax authority as a legitimate request for a review and subsequent disposition after the taxpayer requests a subsequent disposition on the request for a review or a subsequent disposition. It is clear that the agency itself does not directly mean that the subsequent disposition is part of the decision on the objection, etc. or that it is not supplemented.

Article 65(1), Article 66(6), and Article 81 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulate only the decision of rejection, dismissal, revocation, correction, or necessary disposition as a type of the decision on objection, etc. The decision of reinvestigation is not a decision of rejection, but does not constitute a decision of rejection, since the decision of reinvestigation is a decision on the merits, the entire claim of the claimant, etc. is rejected and the legality of the disposition is not verified. In general, a decision of reinvestigation is made when the assertion of the claimant, etc. is deemed to be partly reasonable, and thus, falls under any of the decisions of the decision of rejection. However, the decision of reinvestigation does not fall under any of the decisions of the decision of rejection, because the disposition is immediately revoked, corrected, or presented any correction criteria, and thus does not fall under the decision of rejection or the decision of correction. The tax authorities seems to fall under the “decision of the necessary disposition”. However, the “decision of the necessary disposition” cannot be deemed to fall under the direct remedy of rights by ordering the disposition of rejection to clarify the detailed contents of the act of disposition.

If the re-audit decision is deemed valid as a decision on the objection, etc. by focusing on the autonomous administrative control function of the administrative appeals like the majority opinion, it is difficult to explain the taxation practice that the disposition agency can make a subsequent disposition to increase the tax amount and the tax base in the process of correcting illegal dispositions according to the results of re-audit.

국세기본법 제79조 제2항 은 ‘국세심판관회의 또는 국세심판관합동회의는 심판결정을 함에 있어서 심판청구를 한 처분보다 청구인에게 불이익이 되는 결정을 하지 못한다’고 규정하여 심판청구에 관하여 불이익변경금지원칙을 명문화하고 있고, 이러한 불이익변경금지원칙은 명문의 규정이 없는 이의신청이나 심사청구의 경우에도 적용된다고 보는 것이 일반적이다( 대법원 2007. 11. 16. 선고 2005두10675 판결 등 참조). 그런데 과세실무에서는 처분청이 재조사결정에 따른 재조사과정에서 얻은 새로운 과세자료를 근거로 증액경정처분을 하는 경우도 많은데 이는 새로운 조사에 근거한 새로운 처분이라고 보아 받아들여지고 있는 실정이다. 행정심판의 자율적 행정통제기능을 강조하는 다수의견의 입장에서도 이를 부정할 이유가 없을 것으로 보인다. 그러나 재조사결정이 이의신청 등에 대한 결정으로서 유효하다는 다수의견에 따르면, 재조사결정에 따른 후속 처분이 증액경정처분인 경우 당초 처분액수를 초과하는 부분은 새로운 과세자료를 근거로 하였음에도 불구하고 불이익변경금지원칙에 위배되는 결과가 되어 당연무효라고 보아야 하는데( 대법원 2004. 12. 9. 선고 2003두278 판결 참조), 이는 다수의견이 행정심판의 자율적 행정통제기능을 강조하는 것과는 모순된다.

In a case where the disposition authority conducts a reinvestigation to the extent that it is necessary to conduct a reinvestigation during the deliberation process of the ruling authority, it shall not be deemed as a part of the decision on the objection, etc., but the legal principle that the disposition authority shall not make a decision disadvantageous to the claimant, as long as it is based on the re-audit conducted according to the ruling of the ruling authority, is still applicable, and it shall not be deemed a disposition for increased or decreased in violation thereof. However, if the re-audit of the disposition authority satisfies the substantial requirements as a new investigation, it is possible to view that the disposition for increased or decreased in accordance with the results can be conducted without denying the disposition authority's unique right to correct, it is reasonable interpretation that takes into account the legislative purpose of the principle for the prohibition of disadvantageous changes.

B. Thus, the re-audit decision is merely an internal order ordering the agency to conduct re-audit for efficient deliberation of the case. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a decision on the objection, etc., and it takes effect by subsequent disposition. Therefore, even if the re-audit decision or subsequent disposition is notified to the claimant, etc., the ruling agency should not proceed with the request period, etc. until the claimant, etc. is notified of the decision on the type provided for in the Framework Act on National Taxes after the re-audit decision or subsequent disposition. This conclusion is criticized that if the ruling agency does not again make a decision on the type provided for in the Framework Act on National Taxes after the re-audit decision or subsequent disposition, the legal relationship is in unstable for a long time due to the absence of the final decision on the type provided for in the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, this result is merely merely that the ruling agency did not make a decision on the type of re-audit under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and it can be corrected for a long time by the ruling agency to make final decision on

In light of the above legal principles, the request for review of this case was filed after the expiration of the period for decision-making under the proviso of Article 61 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes because the plaintiff was not notified of the decision-making within the period for decision-making. Thus, the decision of the court below that rejected the defendant's prior defense on the merits is just, and there

C. For the foregoing reasons, I agree with the conclusion of the majority opinion, but I express my separate opinion as to its reasons.

5. Concurrence with the Majority Opinion by Justice Lee Hong-hoon

A. The purpose of the administrative litigation is to relieve citizens from infringement of their rights or interests and to properly resolve disputes over the relationship of rights or the application of law by cancelling or changing illegal dispositions, etc. of administrative agencies, or by confirming the validity or existence of such dispositions, etc. (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du6342, Mar. 20, 2008). As to the period for filing a lawsuit against such administrative litigation or the period for filing a petition in an administrative trial, which is the procedure before it, a reasonable conclusion shall be derived from the way to properly harmonize the stability of administrative law relations and the relief for infringement of their rights or interests.

In the past, the Supreme Court has held that the period for filing a lawsuit should be calculated from the date of receipt of the notice of re-audit as to the relationship between the initial disposition and the initial disposition after re-audit. In other words, in a case where a disposition to reduce tax base and the amount of tax is not the initial disposition and its substance is changed, and its effect is favorable to taxpayers, and thus the relevant disposition is not revoked as part of the amount of tax, and the relevant disposition remains illegal, the subject of an appeal litigation is not the object of an appeal litigation and the remaining part is not the object of an appeal litigation. Thus, in a case where a disposition to correct the amount of tax was made after a legitimate pre-examination procedure or compliance with the period for filing a lawsuit is also determined based on the initial disposition, unless there are special circumstances to recognize a separate means of litigation against the original disposition even in a case of a disposition to correct the amount of tax which was made according to the re-audit decision, it shall be calculated on the basis that the period for filing a lawsuit is applied to the previous disposition to the disposition after re-audit (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu16068, 208, supra.).

However, even if the re-audit decision was notified, it is difficult for the taxpayer to specify the object and scope of objection by itself, so it is common to see the results of re-audit, and then determine whether to proceed to the next stage of appeal procedures. However, the above Supreme Court precedents have pointed out the problem that the taxpayer's right to request a trial guaranteed by the Constitution is infringed by allowing the taxpayer to immediately file a subsequent appeal before receiving the notification of the follow-up disposition.

Under this background, the majority opinion takes into account the form and purport of the reinvestigation decision, and the characteristics of autonomous administrative control and tax legal relations of the administrative appeal system, and considers that the reinvestigation decision takes effect only when its contents are supplemented by subsequent disposition, and thus it is effective as a decision on the objection, etc. In the event that a reinvestigation decision was made, it is intended to revise the previous Supreme Court precedents to substantially guarantee taxpayers' right to claim a judgment by changing the previous Supreme Court precedents to the effect that the period of appeal and the period of filing a lawsuit

B. However, despite the majority opinion's conclusion on the instant case, the Concurring Opinion argues that the re-audit decision merely constitutes a de facto internal order ordering the disposition agency to conduct re-audit for the efficient deliberation of the instant case, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a decision on the objection, etc., however, it is difficult to accept this Opinion for the following reasons.

First, in light of the characteristics, expertise, etc. of administrative acts, the principle of administrative appeals is the fundamental purpose of respecting the autonomy of administration, and at the same time reducing litigation costs and time to reduce convenience for the people and to reduce the burden of the court.

In addition, the re-audit decision reflects the unique characteristics of the complicated and technical legal relationship, and where it is necessary to further investigate the facts supporting the legal claim that the claimant, etc. has the legal nature, it has been recognized that ordering the disposition agency to take necessary measures through re-audit can be more directly and effectively effective in the prompt remedy against the claimant, etc. Accordingly, the re-audit decision is established as a long-term practice in practice and is accepted by the decision on the objection, etc., and the previous Supreme Court precedents have recognized its validity as a decision on the objection, etc. taking into account these circumstances.

In light of the fundamental purpose of the principle of administrative appeal transfer, peculiarity of tax law relations, background of the formation of reinvestigation decision and taxpayer's awareness, etc., it cannot be said that the ruling authority as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes is a decision by exercising its authority, and it is merely a de facto internal order issued to taxpayers, which is externally indicated and notified to the taxpayer.

Second, the purpose of the administrative appeal system is to relieve the infringement of people's rights or interests due to illegal or unreasonable dispositions of administrative agencies or other exercise or non-exercise of public power, and to ensure proper operation of administration (Article 1 of the Administrative Appeals Act).

As such, administrative appeals are aimed at protecting the rights of citizens and autonomous administrative control functions in the purport of the system, it has the characteristic of administrative action in that it acknowledges facts about administrative disputes and examines and determines the disputes by applying the law. On the other hand, at the same time, it also has an administrative nature in that it regulates the disputed administrative law relations and implements the administrative purpose by maintaining or forming the order of administrative law. The latter part of Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the proviso of Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act are premised on the administrative action character of administrative appeal.

Article 107 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea emphasizes the character as an administrative action by stipulating that "it is possible to make an administrative appeal as a pre-trial procedure for a trial. The procedure of administrative appeal shall be determined by law, and the judicial procedure shall be applied mutatis mutandis." However, in that administrative appeal is an internal procedure of the administration aimed at the proper operation of the administration as a pre-trial procedure for administrative litigation, the above administrative action cannot be seen beyond the above administrative action character. The Concurring Opinion is problematic in that it excessively emphasizes the nature of the administrative appeal only.

In addition, deeming the content of the re-audit decision as a modified decision that supplements the nature of the re-audit decision does not intend to declare the legal principle that the disposition authority is completely permitted to exercise the power of the ruling authority in the general administrative appeals procedure instead of exercising the power of the ruling. However, there is a limit to suggest a useful standard of judgment to taxpayers who need to decide whether to proceed to the next stage of appeal procedures, while it is difficult to deny the validity of the decision as a result of a decision on objection, etc., so that the relationship between the re-audit decision and the subsequent disposition should be interpreted as such to substantially guarantee taxpayers' right to claim a trial. Therefore, the Majority cannot be deemed as impairing the quasi-judicial character of the administrative appeal, such as the pointed

Third, Article 32 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that "when an administrative appeals commission deems that a request for revocation trial is well-grounded, it shall order the revocation or alteration of the disposition, or the revocation or alteration to the disposition agency," and Article 32 (5) of the Administrative Appeals Act explicitly provides that "when an appeal for the performance of an obligation is deemed reasonable, an administrative appeals commission shall take a disposition following the request or order the disposition to be made without delay."

In contrast, Article 65(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "if a request for review is deemed well-grounded, a decision on cancellation, correction, or necessary disposition which is the object of the request shall be made," and Articles 66(6) and 81 provide that Article 65(1)3 of the above Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to an objection and a request for adjudgment, while it is unclear as to whether a decision on performance is permissible in the form of quoted ruling, it is general to regard that a decision on performance is allowed in the appeal procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes. In this regard, it cannot be readily concluded that the Framework Act on National Taxes provides the type of decision on objection, etc. as limited and urgent. In addition, the Framework Act on National Taxes amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007 added the provisions to the effect that an exception to the prohibition of duplicate investigation is not permitted in light of the above circumstances.

Fourth, even in light of the tax practice where the re-audit decision is made with respect to the whole of one taxable unit as well as the whole of one taxable unit, it is difficult to accept the Concurring Opinion. In the tax practice, the ruling authority has to make a re-audit decision only on the part of one taxable unit, and the remainder is often often a case where the ruling authority makes a partial decision or a partial decision of rejection or a partial decision of acceptance or a partial decision of acceptance with respect to the remainder. As can be seen, it is questionable whether the ruling authority is merely an internal order, not an internal order, such as the Concurring Opinion, even

Fifth, the Concurring Opinion argues that, even if a reinvestigation decision or subsequent disposition is merely an internal order and is notified to taxpayers, the period of appeal or the period of filing a lawsuit is not in progress until the ruling authority notifies the taxpayers of the type prescribed in the Framework Act on National Taxes again. However, according to such Concurring Opinion, if a ruling authority does not make any provision on the procedure after the reinspection decision again under the current Framework Act on National Taxes, which does not provide for the procedure after the re-audit decision, the legal relationship remains unstable for a long time due to the absence of the fixed period of appeal or the period of filing a lawsuit. This result is contrary to the purport of the system of appeal or the period of filing a lawsuit that seeks to

Sixth, if a reinvestigation decision is deemed to be merely an internal order as stated in the Concurring Opinion, it cannot be pointed out that there is a problem that harmonious interpretation with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration as stipulated in Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is difficult. This is because, as the Concurring Opinion, if a reinvestigation decision is not a decision on objection, etc., subsequent disposition following the decision is not applicable to the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, so that it is possible to be possible without restriction on reduction correction as well as increase or decrease disposition, as well as the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration. However, such interpretation permits disadvantageous disposition to the taxpayer who raised objection, and thus, is unacceptable in light of the original purport of the litigation system

The Concurring Opinion argues that the disposition authority cannot make a disposition of increase or decrease in accordance with the legal principles of prohibition of disadvantageous change in cases where the disposition authority conducts a reinvestigation within the extent that it is recognized as necessary to conduct a reinvestigation during the deliberation process of the ruling authority, but the Concurring Opinion considers that the legal principles of prohibition of disadvantageous change are applied to the subsequent disposition of the disposition authority even though it is not a decision on objection, etc.

In addition, the Majority Opinion’s focus on autonomous administrative control functions of the administrative appeals, it is not necessary to interpret that a disposition to increase or decrease unfavorable to taxpayers should be permitted without restriction, as alleged in the Concurring Opinion. Rather, a reinvestigation of a disposition agency following a reinvestigation decision is limited to the extent that the need for reinvestigation is recognized during the deliberation process of a ruling agency, and it is deemed that a disposition agency is not allowed in principle to investigate a new taxation requirement or make a subsequent disposition that increases the amount of initial disposition based on the re-investigation decision is in accord with the

C. In full view of the aforementioned various circumstances, the Concurring Opinion, which states that a reinvestigation decision is merely an internal order and that it cannot be deemed that there was a decision on the objection, etc., is difficult to accept. Rather, as the Majority Opinion, deeming that a reinvestigation decision becomes effective only when it is supplemented by the subsequent disposition, is a more reasonable interpretation of the nature of the administrative appeals system that functions as a remedy for the rights of the people and autonomous administrative control. As above, I express my concurrence with the Majority Opinion.

Chief Justice Lee Yong-hoon (Presiding Justice)