Whether an administrative agency or a ruling authority is obligated to request an applicant for administrative appeal to change his/her applicant to a person qualified as a petitioner (negative); and whether the applicant is allowed to change voluntarily in the administrative appeal procedure (negative)

With respect to an administrative appeal filed in the name of a person without standing to file an appeal, no administrative agency or a ruling authority is obliged to order the applicant for the administrative appeal to be changed to a person with standing to file an appeal, and any voluntary change of a petitioner in the administrative appeal procedure

Articles 9(1), 12, 18(1) and (3), 20, and 23(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act, Article 18(1) of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 4770 of July 27, 1994), Articles 1 and 2(1) of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 4770 of July 27, 1994), Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 5291 of January 13, 1997)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Head of the Veterans Affairs Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 97Gu3254 delivered on May 14, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's request on November 25 of the same year and notified the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff's non-party 1 did not constitute a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State since the plaintiff's non-party 2 did not have any duty to dismiss the plaintiff's request on the ground that the plaintiff's non-party 1 did not have any duty to dismiss the plaintiff's request on the ground that the plaintiff's non-party 2 did not have any duty to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal under the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the plaintiff's right to request the correction of the administrative appeal of this case, and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the plaintiff 2, was dismissed.

In light of the records and relevant statutes, the decision of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 18 (1) through (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

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 Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)