[1] Territorial jurisdiction of the defendant, who is a public corporation,

[2] Whether an agreement with jurisdiction over administrative litigation can be reached even after the filing of the lawsuit (affirmative)

[1] Article 9 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "the court of first instance having jurisdiction over the location of the defendant shall be the administrative court having jurisdiction over the location of the defendant." Article 9 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "if the defendant of a revocation lawsuit is a public corporation which is not an administrative agency, only the principal office shall be considered as the "place", or if the defendant of a revocation lawsuit is a public corporation which is not an administrative agency, the subordinate office of a regional headquarters or a branch office shall be considered as the "place". However, since there is no provision regarding this in the Administrative Litigation Act, the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8 (1) and (2) of the same Act. Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the general forum of a corporation, other association or foundation shall be based on its principal office or business office, and if there is no office or business office, it shall be based on the address of the person in charge of the principal affairs." Article 10 of the same Act provides that "The territorial jurisdiction of a revocation lawsuit against a public corporation shall be brought to the competent court which

[2] The territorial jurisdiction of the administrative litigation is not exclusive jurisdiction, so it is possible to agree upon by agreement between the parties. The agreement under jurisdiction is possible not only before the lawsuit but also after the lawsuit.

[1] Articles 8(1) and (2), and 9(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 4 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act; / [2] Article 36(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[2]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Kim Jong-mun (Attorney Lee Jong-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Busan District Court Order 98Gu731 dated March 30, 1998

The original decision shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are significant or recognized as recorded by a party member:

A. On March 30, 1998, the court of original judgment rendered a decision to transfer the above case to the Ulsan District Court ex officio on the ground that the above case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the above court with respect to the case of revocation of revocation of revocation of medical care which the appellant filed with the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant") as the defendant.

B. Accordingly, the appellant, who is the plaintiff, filed an immediate appeal against the above decision and agreed with the defendant to the Busan District Court that the above lawsuit should be brought to the Busan District Court or be tried by the above court.

C. On May 26, 1983, the appeal filed an application for medical care with the purport that the appellant who was employed in Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd., which had been employed in the preceding books and had been employed in the previous books on Jan. 29, 197, for the medical care for occupational illness with respect to the certificate of decline in leuk-gu, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, U.S., filed an application for medical care on March 29, 198 with Defendant Ulsan District Co., Ltd. with the purport of adding liverer, food, beer, beer, beer, and urology to be sick and wounded, but the head of Ulsan District Co., Ltd. filed an application for non-approval.

2. Territorial jurisdiction of the above case

A. Article 9(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "the competent court of the first instance of a revocation suit shall be the administrative court having jurisdiction over the location of the defendant." Thus, the issue is whether the defendant of the revocation suit shall be deemed to be the "place of the principal office" in the case of a public corporation such as the defendant of the above case, not the administrative agency, or the "place of the principal office" in the case of a local headquarters or branch office.

B. Since there is no provision as to the Administrative Litigation Act, the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8 (1) and (2) of the same Act. Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the general forum of a corporation, other association or foundation shall be based on its principal office or business office, and if there is no office or business office, it shall be based upon the address of the principal person in charge of the affairs." Article 10 of the same Act provides that "An action against a person who has an office or business office may be brought to the court at the seat of that office or business office only if it is related to the affairs of such office or business office." Thus, the territorial jurisdiction of the above case is in the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul High Court, the principal office of the defendant, which is the Seoul High Court of 94-267, the Seoul High Court of 94-267, and the Ulsan District Court of U.

C. Therefore, the decision of the court of original court which transferred the above case to the Ulsan District Court by reason that it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the court of original judgment is legitimate once.

3. Validity of agreement on jurisdiction after the decision of transfer; and

A. Article 36(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the decision of transfer shall take effect at the time when the decision of transfer becomes final and conclusive. The decision of transfer of this case is not yet effective due to the blocking of confirmation by an immediate appeal of the appellant.

B. Meanwhile, since the territorial jurisdiction of the administrative litigation is not exclusive jurisdiction, it is possible to have an agreement by agreement between the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu18655 delivered on January 25, 1994), and the agreement under jurisdiction is possible not only before the lawsuit is brought, but also after the lawsuit is brought. The above lawsuit is placed under a name to be transferred ex officio to the Seoul Administrative Court or Ulsan District Court due to the violation of jurisdiction as it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the court below at the time of the lawsuit. However, the defects in the violation of jurisdiction are cured and the jurisdiction arises by the appellant upon agreement with the defendant as well as the immediate appeal of this case. Thus, the decision of transfer by the court of original judgment on the ground that the above lawsuit does not fall under the jurisdiction of the court of original judgment was eventually illegal

4. Conclusion

Thus, the appellant's immediate appeal of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by citing it to cancel the original decision.

Judges Hand-type (Presiding Judge) the highest number of the judges