1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From August 1, 2000, the Plaintiff received livelihood benefits as a beneficiary under the National Basic Living Security Act (hereinafter “Basic Livelihood Security Act”).

B. On November 22, 2016, the Defendant issued a prior notice to collect KRW 700,520 of the cost of living benefits paid in excess pursuant to Article 46 of the Basic Livelihood Security Act and Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not report to the Defendant, even though the Plaintiff did not have any daily earned income of KRW 1,00,750, total amount of KRW 1,000,750,” to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant notice”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant notification with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 28, 2017 on the ground that the said notification was not an administrative disposition subject to administrative appeal.

The defendant did not make a decision on collection scheduled in the notice of this case against the plaintiff until now.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-8, Eul evidence Nos. 1-7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

The term "disposition which is the object of an appeal litigation" means an act under the public law of an administrative agency, which causes direct change in the specific rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations under Acts and subordinate statutes or giving rise to other legal effects with respect to a specific matter, and any act, etc. which does not directly change the legal status of the other party or other interested persons, such as notification of the fact,

However, the instant notification is merely a notification of the concept of informing the Plaintiff that the cost of living benefits will be collected in the future, and it does not constitute an act of direct change in the Plaintiff’s specific rights and obligations. Therefore, it does not constitute a disposition subject to appeal litigation.