(a) Actions to nullify the invalidity of some provisions of the notification and civil action;

(b) Whether a claim seeking nullification of the notification itself is subject to an administrative litigation

A. A lawsuit seeking confirmation is a civil suit under Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which is a higher law, since a part of the notification of an administrative agency is invalid against the law, enforcement rules, and the Constitution, which is a higher law. This is only a person prescribed by the law in the case where the law is prescribed by Article 45 of the same Act.

(b) A claim that can be subject to an administrative litigation shall be a dispute concerning specific rights and obligations, and a general and abstract statute or public notice itself, which does not directly cause a change in the specific rights and obligations of the people, may not be subject to such a claim. Therefore, a claim seeking nullification of the public notice itself is unlawful because it is not subject to an administrative litigation, regardless of the dispute concerning specific rights and obligations.

A. Articles 3 and 45 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu656 delivered on March 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 750). Supreme Court Decision 4286Nu37 delivered on August 19, 1954 (No. 199Du34)

Plaintiff 【Defendant-Appellee】 Minister of Environment

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu2491 delivered on December 18, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On June 26, 1989, the plaintiff's claim in this case that some of the provisions of Article 23 (2) of the Wastes Control Act, which is a superior law, is null and void against Article 45 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Articles 37 (2) and 11 (1) of the Constitution, etc. The court below held that the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is a civil suit filed by the state or public organization under subparagraph 3 of Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act to seek correction without direct legal interests. Thus, if the state or public organization's action in this case violates the law, it can be brought only to the person provided for in the law in this case under Article 45 of the same Act. Since a lawsuit in the form of the plaintiff's internal suit is not recognized under the law, it can not be subject to a civil suit, and therefore, it can not be subject to a dispute on specific rights and duties, and since it does not directly cause a change in the rights and duties of the people, which is a general or abstract public notice, it cannot be subject to the plaintiff's 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.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)