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

[2] The case holding that the response of the head of the competent Gu to inquire about the legitimacy of the supply of electricity by the Korea Electric Power Corporation is merely an act of a recommended nature, and cannot be deemed as an administrative disposition subject to appeal

[1] The term "administrative disposition", which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to an act of an administrative agency under public law, which causes direct change in the legal status of the other party or other persons concerned, 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, and an act, etc., which does not directly change the legal status of the other party or other persons concerned, such as actions, intermediation, solicitation, and de facto notification, etc. inside

[2] The case holding that where the head of the competent Gu responded to the Korea Electric Power Corporation that received a request for a new supply of electricity from the owner of a building that was subject to a temporary power supply due to an unauthorized change of use, and the head of the competent Gu confirmed that the supply of electricity to the Korea Electric Power Corporation was not possible under Article 69 (2) and (3) of the Building Act, the response is merely an act of a recommended nature, and it does not directly change the legal status of the Korea Electric Power Corporation or a specific person, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal

[1] Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 69 of the Building Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 78Nu379 delivered on October 14, 1980 (Gong1980, 1330), Supreme Court Decision 80Nu395 delivered on October 27, 1980 (Gong1981, 13374) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126 delivered on February 11, 1992 (Gong1992, 1037), Supreme Court Order 93Nu631 delivered on April 12, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1312), Supreme Court Order 93Nu632 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 3192) (Gong193Ha, 193Ha, 3192).

Plaintiff (Law Firm East, Attorneys Kim Sun-ray et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu39712 delivered on May 18, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

Judgment ex officio is made.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on June 2, 1993, the defendant requested the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Electric Power Corporation") to suspend the building of this case on the ground that the plaintiff used the building of this case without permission, and on August 19 of the same year, the Korea Electric Power Corporation received such request, and on October 19 of the same year, the plaintiff asked the defendant about the legitimacy of the supply of new electricity to the defendant on October 28 of the same year, and on this basis, the defendant sent a reply that the supply of the building of this case is illegal, and thus it is not possible to supply the building of this case to the defendant on November 10, 1994, and the plaintiff dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the relation pursuant to the Building Act and the Building Act (hereinafter referred to as the "the reply of this case").

However, an administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to an act of an administrative agency's public law, which directly changes in the specific rights and obligations of the public, 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 within the administrative authority, such as actions, intermediation, solicitation, de facto notification, etc., which does not directly change in the legal status of the other party or other related persons, may not be subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu6331, Oct. 26, 1993; 94Nu10832, Jul. 28, 1995); and in light of the purport of Article 69(2) and (3) of the Building Act, the answer in this case is merely a recommending act requesting the supply of electricity to the plaintiff before it is not a direct change in the legal status of the other party or other related persons, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

Nevertheless, the court below, however, found the reply of this case as an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation and judged it. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the grounds of appeal, and this case is deemed sufficient to be directly tried by the party members. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)