The lawful requirements for the legal action for confirming illegality of the omission

A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is a system for the purpose of the prompt response of an administrative agency by confirming that the omission is illegal if an administrative agency fails to comply with a legal obligation to respond to such passive disposition, such as accepting, rejecting, or rejecting an application for an application for a right under laws or regulations of a party, within a reasonable period of time, despite the existence of a legal response obligation to respond to the application, and thereby removing a passive state of omission or non-compliance with the administrative agency's response promptly. Thus, in a case where an administrative agency rendered a disposition of refusal against a party's application, the action for confirmation of illegality of omission

Article 4 subparag. 3 and Article 36 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11278 delivered on June 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 2156) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8807 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2907) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1709 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1577)

Plaintiff 1 and eight others (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Market for Lighting

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu652, 6552, 6569, 6576, 6583, 6590, 6606, 6613, 6620, 6637 delivered on August 14, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

A lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is a system for the purpose of the affirmative action that accepts, rejects, or dismiss an application filed by an administrative agency within a reasonable period of time in accordance with the laws and regulations of a party, or the passive action that requires an administrative agency to respond to the law, notwithstanding the existence of a legal obligation to respond to such action, if the administrative agency fails to do so, it is verified that the omission is illegal, and thus, if the administrative agency promptly provides a response to the administrative agency's response and refuses a disposition of refusal against the party's application, it cannot be deemed that there is an illegal omission that is the object of an appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17099, Apr. 23, 1993, etc.) and thus, the lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission shall be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17099, Apr. 23, 193). The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justified, and it does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to this point.

2. On the third ground for appeal

In light of the records, the plaintiffs sought the revocation of the defendant's rejection disposition at issue in the first case, and revised the purport of the claim to verify illegality of omission. The alteration of the purport of the claim is clear that it is an exchangeal change and there is no reason for the court below to exercise its right of explanation, and there is no violation of law of incomplete deliberation as pointed out in the ground of appeal. The grounds of appeal on this point are not acceptable.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)