[1] Where a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, knew or could easily know the administrative disposition, the period for requesting an administrative appeal

[2] The case holding that a request for adjudication filed by a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, is unlawful, since 60 days have passed since the third party knew or could have easily known the relevant disposition

[1] Since a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, is in a position in which it is not immediately known that a disposition is generally taken, a request for an administrative appeal may be made on the ground that there is a justifiable reason under the proviso of Article 18 (3) of the former Administrative Appeals Act (amended by Act No. 5000 of Dec. 6, 1995), unless there is any special reason, even after 180 days have passed from the date of the disposition. However, if there are circumstances that a request for an administrative appeal can be made within the period for a trial under Article 18 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act, such as where the third party knew or could easily know that an administrative disposition was taken or

[2] In a lawsuit in which a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition is a party, where a certificate of farmland trade issued by the administrative disposition is submitted as evidence and the judgment is pronounced on the basis thereof, the third party should be deemed to have known or could have known at least the date when the evidence was submitted or at least the date when the document was served, and thus, the administrative disposition (issuance of certificate of farmland trade) was known or could have been easily known, the case rejecting the administrative lawsuit filed by the court prior to the trial on the ground that the request for administrative appeal filed after

[1] Article 18 of the former Administrative Appeals Act (amended by Act No. 5000 of Dec. 6, 1995) / [2] Article 18 of the former Administrative Appeals Act (amended by Act No. 5000 of Dec. 6, 1995)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12494 delivered on August 25, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3287) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu9730 delivered on November 7, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3923)

Plaintiff

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 200Na14466 decided May 2, 200

Busan High Court Decision 94Gu6680 delivered on October 11, 1995

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be reversed and the plaintiff's lawsuit concerning this part shall be dismissed. The total costs of lawsuit shall

We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal ex officio prior to judgment.

The court below held on October 6, 1993 that the defendant's issuance of the certificate of sale and purchase of the farmland of this case against the non-party (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") was unlawful as alleged in its assertion, and held that the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the above disposition is invalid around the contrary, and that the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the previous disposition was entered into the main claim, and dismissed the main claim and accepted the conjunctive claim.

A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, is in a position in which it is generally impossible to know the fact that a disposition is taken. Thus, even after 180 days from the date of the disposition, a petition for adjudication may be filed on the ground that there is a justifiable reason under the proviso of Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act (amended by Act No. 5000 of Dec. 6, 1995), unless there are any special reasons, but if there are circumstances that a petition for adjudication can be filed within the period for adjudication under Article 18 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act, such as where the third party becomes aware or could easily be aware of the fact that an administrative disposition is taken due to any reason, it shall be filed within 60 days from such time (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu12494, Aug. 25, 199; 95Nu9730, Nov. 7, 1995).

However, according to the records, the non-party submitted a certificate of farmland sale issued by the disposition of this case to the Changwon District Court, Changwon District Court, 93Da1458, which the non-party filed against the plaintiff, as evidence, and the above court rendered a favorable judgment of the non-party on December 14, 1993 based on the above evidence. Thus, the plaintiff knew of the existence of the certificate of farmland sale and so it can be seen that he knew or could have easily known of the fact of the disposition of this case, and it is obvious that the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal for the cancellation of the disposition of this case only after the lapse of 60 days from the time of the plaintiff's submission of the certificate of farmland sale to the court or at least on the date of delivery of the above judgment to the plaintiff (the above judgment is deemed to have been delivered to the plaintiff at that time).

Thus, although the lawsuit on the preliminary claim of this case, which was filed without due administrative appeal procedure, is defective, and it is unlawful. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the litigation requirements in the administrative litigation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is reversed, and the lawsuit on the conjunctive claim of this case is unlawful, and it is obvious that the defects cannot be corrected. The total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)