(a) Measures to be taken by a court where there is no illegality inherent in a lawsuit seeking revocation of adjudication itself;

(b) Whether it is necessary to go through the previous trial procedure against the adjudication on an administrative appeal

A. Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a litigation for revocation shall be subject to the original disposition of an administrative agency (the original disposition principle): Provided, That in the case of a litigation for revocation of adjudication, the adjudication of an administrative appeal shall also be subject to a litigation for revocation, and in the case of a litigation for revocation of adjudication, whether the adjudication itself has an inherent illegality or not, and in the case of a litigation for revocation of adjudication, regardless of whether the original disposition is proper or not, the litigation for revocation of

B. Article 39 of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that no appeal may be filed again against the adjudication on a request for adjudication, so this adjudication may be brought immediately against the adjudication.

(a) Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu314 delivered on January 24, 1989 (Gong1989, 316) 89Nu1865 delivered on October 24, 1989 (Gong1989, 1806) 91Nu6979 delivered on February 28, 1992 (Gong192, 1188)

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

The Commissioner of the Gyeongbuk-do Police Agency

Daegu High Court Decision 92Gu900 delivered on July 7, 1993

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

1. Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a litigation for revocation shall be subject to the original disposition of an administrative agency (the original disposition principle), but only the "case where the adjudication is based on an inherent error in the adjudication itself" shall be subject to a litigation for revocation. Therefore, in the case of a lawsuit for revocation of adjudication, it shall be examined whether the adjudication itself has an inherent error in the adjudication itself, and in the case where the adjudication itself does not have an inherent error, the lawsuit for revocation of the adjudication concerned shall be dismissed regardless of the legitimacy of the original disposition. Meanwhile, Article 39 of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that a lawsuit for revocation of adjudication shall not be brought again against the adjudication on the request for adjudication. Thus,

2. According to the facts found by the court below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the application for the permission of the investment company on December 31, 1991 by the head of the racing police station and applied for the permission of the investment company to the defendant. The defendant decided on April 8, 192 that the above permission of the investment company was null and void. Furthermore, the plaintiff's application for the permission of the investment company did not meet the requirements of Article 5 of the Regulation of Speculative Acts, etc. and Article 3 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13516 of Dec. 17, 191). The court below rejected the plaintiff's application for the permission of the investment company on December 17, 1991. The appeal for the performance of such obligation which directly requires the ruling authority to grant the necessary administrative disposition is also acknowledged under Articles 4 (3) and 32 (5) of the Administrative Appeals Act, and the ruling authority does not dismiss the above disposition of refusal.

4. If the above circumstances are the same, no separate administrative appeal is required in filing an administrative litigation against the above judgment. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the procedure for the pre-trial trial of administrative litigation, and even if the lawsuit in this case should undergo an administrative appeal against the disposition in this case, the defendant did not notify the period for filing an administrative appeal under Article 42 (1) of the same Act in making an adjudication as above. Thus, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal within 180 days from the time when the above judgment was made pursuant to Article 18 (3) and (6) of the same Act, and the court below's decision without examining the above points shall be deemed to have failed to have been deliberated.

Therefore, the issue is justified within this limit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining parts of the grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)