The period of request for reexamination is not legal or via a prior trial procedure for filing an administrative litigation;

Where the period of adjudication on the reexamination of related Acts and subordinate statutes is not legal, if the administrative agency fails to make the adjudication even after a considerable period has elapsed since the institution of reexamination, it shall be deemed that the administrative litigation may be instituted without waiting the adjudication, and the reasonable period shall be based on two months prescribed in the proviso of Article 2(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Article 2 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The head of the Labor Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu546 delivered on April 29, 1980

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Business and Examination Act, a person who has an objection to the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act may request an industrial accident review to the industrial accident review committee, and a person who has an objection to such decision may file a request for review with the industrial accident review committee, and the person who has an objection to such decision shall file an administrative litigation. The above request for review and reexamination and the institution of administrative litigation shall be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of a written ruling on the request for review of insurance benefits, respectively. Article 7 of the same Act provides that an examiner shall dismiss the request for review if the period under Article 3 (2) of the same Act has expired or the examination is not made in violation of the legal methods, but if the request for review can be corrected even if it violates the legal methods, an examiner may order the examination by decision to dismiss the request for review by a reasonable period, and Articles 1 and 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the examination or reexamination is not made within the period required by the examination committee through the reexamination or reexamination.

2. According to the court below's determination, the defendant issued an application for medical care for the plaintiff on November 14, 1978 without approval as of January 5, 1979, and the plaintiff filed a request for an examination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Review Board of Korea on January 15, 1979 of the same year, and the same examiner decided to dismiss the application as of February 20 of the same year, and the plaintiff filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Review Committee on April 27 of the same year, but the defendant filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Review Committee on April 27 of the same year on the ground that the form was wrong, but the plaintiff filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Review Committee on August 31 of the same year of the same administrative litigation, and according to the purport of the plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff filed a written request for reexamination on May 12 of

3. On the other hand, as seen above, if the plaintiff submitted a written request for reexamination to the defendant who is the original disposition office within the lawful period of time, the defendant should send it to the Industrial Accident Examination Committee through the examiner who conducted the examination and decision pursuant to the above laws and regulations, but the above request for reexamination shall not be deemed unlawful. The above request for reexamination shall be deemed to be in a valid state. However, if the ruling period for reexamination of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes does not exist, the applicant for reexamination shall be bound to file an administrative litigation only after the decision is rendered without writing and the decision is filed.

The reason for this trial system in administrative litigation is to promote the effectiveness of self-control or self-control of the so-called administrative authority to correct illegal and unfair administrative acts by taking into account the case in the administrative agency concerned. Thus, it is not reasonable to treat it for a long time in the previous trial procedure. Thus, if there is no time limit for judgement as to reexamination as in this case, it shall be interpreted that an administrative litigation may be instituted without waiting for the ruling even after a considerable period of time has elapsed after re-examination, and it shall be reasonable to base two months as provided in the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, which is the basic law of administrative litigation, for a considerable period of time. Accordingly, the lawsuit filed on April 27, 1979 in this case without a ruling on it for a prolonged period of two months after re-examination, which is the basic law of administrative litigation, is legitimate. Accordingly, even if there is no ruling on it, the judgment of the court below which rejected the previous trial procedure without being criticized by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)