(a) whether a document seeking the revocation and alteration of an administrative disposition submitted to the agency as a title of the application constitutes a source of action (affirmative);

(b) In a case where a person who obtained a specific person’s permission from the State or a local government purchases subway construction bonds, whether the purchase of the said bonds constitutes the requirements for receiving an application for authorization or permission, etc. (negative)

A. In a case where a person whose rights or interests are infringed due to an illegal or unfair administrative disposition submits a document to the effect that the disposition is cancelled or modified within a statutory period, the source of lawsuit stipulated in the source law refers to a written act which does not require strict forms, and thus, the document shall be deemed a source of lawsuit as stipulated in Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, regardless of the title and representation of the submission agency. Therefore, if the title in the form of document submitted to the disposition agency which is not a superior administrative agency seeks cancellation or modification of the disposition, it constitutes a source of lawsuit as stipulated in Article 2 of

B. Each provision of Article 13(1) and (2) of the subway Construction Promotion Act, Article 12(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 3 of the Ordinance of the Busan Metropolitan City and the Public Bond Ordinance of the subway, Article 6(1) and Article 8(1) of the Rules on Handling Affairs concerning the Purchase of subway Construction Bonds from the State or local governments is obligated to purchase the subway Construction Bonds from the State or local governments, and the competent agency has the obligation to collect the subway Construction Bonds from the State or local governments, and in order to secure the performance of the obligation, the pertinent agency is obliged to collect the purchase certificate of the above bonds when issuing a license, permit, or authorization. However, it does not appear to be a ground for rejection of the application without accepting the application for license, permit, or authorization, etc. because the Mayor, in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the subway Construction Promotion Act of the Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City and the Public Bond Ordinance of the Seoul Metropolitan City, which requires the purchase certificate to be kept by the purchaser of the relevant documents listed in the attached Table.

(a) Article 2 of the source Act and Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 13 of the subway Construction Promotion Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the subway Construction Promotion Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Gu125 delivered on April 24, 1984

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 82 Gu13 delivered on March 8, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

The source of lawsuit stipulated in the source law is a written act that does not require strict forms. Thus, when a person whose rights or interests have been infringed by an illegal or unfair administrative disposition submits a document to the competent administrative agency seeking cancellation or modification of the disposition within a statutory period, such document shall be deemed a source of lawsuit as provided in Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, regardless of the title and indicated agency (see Supreme Court Decision 83Gu125, Apr. 24, 1984). For the same purport, the document submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant who is the disposition agency is a title, and the submission agency is a disposition agency which is not the superior administrative agency of the disposition agency. However, the purport of the document of this case is the defendant's claim for cancellation of the disposition of this case, so it is justifiable in the judgment of the court below that it constitutes a source of lawsuit as provided in Article 2 of the source of lawsuit law,

With respect to the second and third points:

According to Article 13 (1) of the Urban Railroad Construction Promotion Act, those who obtain a license or authorization from the State or local governments, those who apply for registration or enrollment of the State or local governments, those who enter into construction contracts with the State or local governments, and matters concerning the purchase amount and procedure shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 12 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the State or local governments shall obtain a license or authorization or enter into construction contracts under the conditions as prescribed by the attached Table. Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and the Municipal Ordinance of the relevant local governments shall not provide that the State or local governments shall purchase the Do construction bonds under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and that the State or local governments shall not issue the certificate of license or authorization if the former Municipal Ordinance does not provide that the former Municipal Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance shall not issue the certificate of license or construction contracts to the purchaser for the purpose of purchasing the Do construction bonds. Meanwhile, Article 6 (1) of the former Municipal Ordinance of the same Act provides that the former Municipal Ordinance shall not issue the certificate of license or permit.

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 on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)