The initial date in calculating the period for filing a lawsuit seeking revocation against an administrative disposition by public notice.

Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu490 Decided January 20, 1987 (Gong1987, 318) Supreme Court Decision 2004Du3847 Decided April 14, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 813) Supreme Court Decision 2004Du619 Decided June 14, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1084)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Won, Attorneys Min Jae-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Do Governor of Gyeongnam-do

Busan High Court Decision 2009Nu4661 Decided December 18, 2009

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

Judgment ex officio is made.

Except as otherwise provided for in the proviso of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the relevant administrative agency becomes aware of the cause of revocation, etc. (main sentence of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act). Whether the period of filing a lawsuit is complied with is an ex officio investigation by the court as a litigation requirement (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu490, Jan. 20, 1987). Meanwhile, regardless of whether a person who has an interest in an administrative disposition by a public notice was actually aware of the fact that the public notice was made, he/she shall be deemed to have been aware of the administrative disposition as of the date on which the public notice became effective (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du3847, Apr. 14, 2006). In cases of a public notice document to inform the general public of certain matters, such as a public notice or public notice shall become effective from the date on which five days have elapsed after the public notice or public notice was made (see Article

According to the records, the defendant decided to establish a golf course on July 30, 2008 and publicly announced the decision on July 31, 2008. The lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the above urban management plan decision can be known to the fact that it was filed on November 20, 2008 after 90 days from the effective date of the above public notice, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is any special circumstance provided for in the proviso of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as the lawsuit of this case as the Do

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which rendered a judgment on the merits with the grounds for retirement as above. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the period for filing a revocation suit

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed. Since this case is sufficient for the court to directly render a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)