The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be determined by the "20 days" of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance as "10 days", and, except for the addition of the judgment by this court as follows, it is identical to the part against the defendant among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. The Plaintiff’s additional decision in this court is not a decoration provision under Article 24(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act, and the Minister of Health and Welfare is obligated to submit a written response to the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal pursuant to the above legal provision. However, the Minister of Health and Welfare, by intention or negligence, intentionally or negligently violates the above provision and submitted a written response for 50 days, thereby causing damages equivalent to the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in filing an administrative litigation against the Minister of Health and Welfare. The Defendant should have avoided the Plaintiff’s objection, and the written response was delayed, and the written response may be delayed, depending on the degree of difficulty in administrative appeal. However, the Plaintiff’s objection is not related to the submission of the written response by the Minister of Health and Welfare, and the administrative agency’s failure to strictly comply with the written response by the provision of Article 24(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act is unlawful. Thus, the Defendant must compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the delay in submitting the written response by the

The Plaintiff’s assertion in this court is not different from the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance court, and the evidence submitted in the first instance court (Evidence No. 19-1, 2, and 20) was added to the evidence submitted in this court. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s reasoning as cited in the foregoing case (this court 2017 A. 1237) is a decoration provision of Article 24(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act.