2015Nu61193. Revocation of Government Rewards

A

The Minister of Education

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap7807 decided September 24, 2015

January 21, 2016

February 4, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the rejection of the recommendation of governmental rewards, which the president of the Jeonnam University retired from the retirement age in February 2012, to the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows, since the defendant has been appointed a law firm B as the legal representative on October 28, 2015, the defendant's legal representative on behalf of the defendant shall be changed from No. 4 to No. 19 on the same page No. 4, and the "No. 20 on the same page No. 20 on the same page No. 3)" shall be changed to "No. 6, No. 11 on the same page No. 4," and the "No. 11 on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance" are the same as the entry on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the plaintiff's judgment is not unlawful in light of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, but the court of first instance without holding that the plaintiff's lawsuit was dismissed as the legal representative on behalf of the defendant at the date of pleading of the court of first instance without holding any pleadings.

“1) Unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts, an administrative agency that issued a disposition, etc. shall be the defendant (Article 13(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act). The plaintiff sought revocation of the act of refusal of governmental rewards to the plaintiff by the president of Jeonnam University, and sought revocation of the act of refusal of such recommendation by the Minister of Education without having the defendant designated as the president of Jeonnam University. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is filed against a non-qualified person.

2) Even if the Defendant seeks the revocation of the refusal by the president of the Jeonnam University, not the president of the Jeonnam University, to the Defendant, “The Defendant would revoke the recommendation of governmental rewards that the president of the Jeonnam University retired from retirement age on February 2, 2012,” it constitutes a lawsuit seeking performance of duties. In light of the interpretation of the current Administrative Litigation Act, other forms of administrative litigation than those provided for in Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act are not allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). Since the lawsuit seeking performance of duties does not fall under any of the types of administrative litigation listed in Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the instant lawsuit constitutes a lawsuit that is not permitted under the Administrative Litigation Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed in accordance with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge, Yellow Judge

Judges Hun-Ba

Judges Kim Gin-ran