[1] The meaning of an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation

[2] Whether an administrative agency’s act of not paying annual compensation to a public official constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (negative)

[1] The term "disposition which is the object of an appeal litigation" refers to an act of an administrative agency under public law, which is directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or giving rise to other legal effects with regard to a specific matter. An act which does not directly change legal status of the other party or other related persons, cannot be a disposition which is the object of an appeal litigation.

[2] In light of the provisions of Article 67 of the State Public Officials Act and Articles 15, 16(5), and 17 of the former Public Officials Service Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14825 of Dec. 14, 1996), the right to claim compensation for annual leave of a public official is created only on the payment date determined by the head of the payment agency, if the conditions under the law are met, such as the public official’s failure to pay annual leave, and does not occur only on the basis of the administrative agency’s decision on payment. Thus, the administrative agency’s failure to pay annual leave compensation affects the legal status, such as the right to claim compensation for annual leave of a public official, and therefore, the administrative agency’s act of paying compensation for annual leave of a public official cannot be deemed a disposition subject

[1] Articles 1 [Administrative Disposition] and 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 67 of the State Public Officials Act, Articles 15, 16 (5), and 17 of the former State Public Officials Service Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14825 of Dec. 14, 1996), Article 45 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of Mar. 13, 1997) (see current Article 54)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu631 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3192), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu5933 delivered on May 9, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1755), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6202 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2123), Supreme Court Decision 98Du15863 delivered on June 25, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1523)

Plaintiff (Attorney Clinical LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Clean Correctional Institution;

Daejeon High Court Decision 96Gu3287 delivered on June 13, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

Before determining the grounds of appeal, this paper examined ex officio.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, as a correctional officer in charge of the guard duty for prisoners in an official prison, the plaintiff submitted a three-day annual leave on May 13, 1995 as stated in the judgment of the court below. On the premise that the defendant's above act constitutes an administrative disposition of the defendant on the premise that the defendant's failure to pay the above one-day annual leave to the plaintiff on May 13, 1995 constitutes an administrative disposition, it cannot be readily conclude that the defendant's above act constitutes a violation of Article 54 of the former Labor Standards Act (Article 54 of the current Labor Standards Act) on the ground that the day is twenty-four hours a day off a day off a day, and the day is two-day a day off a day off a day after the day on which the plaintiff worked, and does not pay the annual leave on December 29, 195.

2. The term "disposition" is an act of an administrative agency under public law, which is directly related to the rights and obligations of citizens, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or giving rise to other legal effects with respect to a specific matter. An act that does not directly change legal status of the other party or other related persons, cannot be a disposition that is subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu6331, Oct. 26, 1993; 96Nu5933, May 9, 197).

However, in light of the provisions of Article 67 of the State Public Officials Act and Articles 15, 16(5), and 17 of the former Regulations on the Service of Public Officials, the right to claim compensation for annual leave of a public official is only generated on the payment date determined by the head of the payment agency, if the public official satisfies the statutory requirements, such as non-performance of annual leave, and does not occur only by the decision of the administrative agency.

In the case of this case, the issue of whether the plaintiff has the right to claim annual compensation for the above one day shall be determined according to whether the requirements prescribed in the above Acts and subordinate statutes are met, and since the defendant cannot be said to have any influence on the legal status, such as the plaintiff's right to claim annual compensation for damages, due to the defendant's act of not paying annual compensation for the above one day to the plaintiff, the above act of the defendant

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of the act that the defendant did not pay the above annual compensation to the plaintiff is unlawful and defective, and thus, it should have been dismissed. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the disposition subject to appeal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and in light of the facts and records established by the court below, since the court is sufficient to judge this case, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who is the losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)