(a) Objects of administrative litigation;

(b) Whether there is an administrative disposition against a reply that no decoration review plan has been submitted to a reporter of the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs;

(c) A lawsuit seeking confirmation of duty to act, which is not subject to appeal litigation;

A. Administrative litigation aims to relieve citizens from infringement of their rights or interests due to an illegal disposition by an administrative agency, or other exercise or non-exercise of public authority, and to properly resolve disputes over the relationship of rights and interests under public law or the application of law, and thus, an administrative litigation is not a simple fact act that is not a dispute over specific rights and obligations as an exercise of public authority by an administrative agency,

B. The reply that the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs did not have a warning review plan to a reporter who has no authority to determine the person subject to a decoration is merely a mere factual act.

(c) A claim filed by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs for the duty to correct the content of the book's independent strike published by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs and to seek confirmation of the duty to pay compensation under the Act to the independent athletes belonging to an independent movement organization is not subject to appeal litigation as a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the duty to act

(a) Article 1(a) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu614 delivered on February 8, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely).

Administrative litigation is aimed at properly resolving disputes over the rights of citizens due to illegal dispositions by administrative agencies or the exercise or non-exercise of public authority, etc., and it is not a dispute over specific rights and duties as an exercise of public authority by administrative agencies, but a simple fact act which is not a dispute over specific rights and duties is not subject to administrative litigation.

In this case, the plaintiff claimed first, the plaintiff revoked the order of merit, commendation, etc. issued to the defendant and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who are the plaintiff's sentencing, and sought an administrative appeal to seek the fulfillment of the obligation to re-disposition again. The defendant sought revocation of the above rejection disposition since the government reward relationship did not become the subject of administrative appeal but did not have a re-examination plan for the winner. Second, since the defendant erroneously published the facts about the independent movement rights 5, 7, and 10, etc. of the issuance, the fact that it is corrected and then again stated in the Official Gazette to confirm that the independent athletes belonging to the independent movement organization, such as the Korean National Assembly, etc., have the obligation to provide compensation benefits under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, but the defendant's objection does not have the authority to request a re-examination plan to the defendant's winner of merit, and the defendant's independent movement and the purport that it is not subject to the independent exercise of law.

The judgment of the court below to the above purport is just, and it is not appropriate as it differs from the case in which there is no error in the rules of evidence, the principle of pleading, or the principle of pleading.

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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)