(a) Whether an order of compensation issued by the Minister of Audit and Inspection, etc. under the Board of Audit and Inspection is an independent administrative act subject to administrative litigation;

(b) Where the competent minister, etc. fails to observe the period of the order of compensation under Article 31 (3) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act and the period of compensation determined by the Board of Audit and Inspection in issuing an order of compensation;

(c) Where only the plaintiff has filed an appeal against the judgment of retirement, a measure of final appeal at the time of the error or claim of retirement without merit.

A. Separate from the illegality of the determination of compensation by the Board of Audit and Inspection, there is a need to separately recognize the order of compensation as an administrative litigation because there is an illegality in the order of compensation by the competent minister, etc., and in addition, considering the provisions of Article 31(2), (3), (5), and Article 36(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Articles 4(1) and 9(1) of the Rules on the Procedure for the Execution of Compensation Execution, etc., the Board of Audit and Inspection can only determine the liability of accounting officials, etc. for compensation by determining whether or not they are liable for compensation abstractly, and specific liability for the payment of compensation according to the contents of the determination of compensation may only arise when the competent minister, etc. takes the disposition of the order of compensation attached to the written determination of compensation by the Board of Audit and Inspection. Thus, even if the order of compensation does not impose any new obligation more than the existing obligation established by the determination of compensation by the Board of Audit and Inspection, it shall not be deemed as merely an act

B. Article 31(3) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act providing that the competent minister, etc. shall issue an order of compensation within 20 days from the date of receipt of the written adjudication of compensation by the Board of Audit and Inspection is merely an internal procedural provision for the efficient and efficient administration among administrative agencies in executing the adjudication of compensation, in view of the fact that there is no disadvantage to the person liable for compensation even though the order of compensation is made after the lapse of the period of the order of compensation. Thus, even if the competent minister issued an order of compensation after the lapse of that period, it cannot be said that the order of compensation is unlawful or invalid as it is only for the reason, and even if the order of compensation was delayed due to the late expiration of that period, the legislative intent of Article 31(3) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act stipulating such a period of compensation at a later date than the initial period of compensation set by the Board of Audit and Inspection shall be deemed to prevent any interference in the performance of the obligation due to the failure of the competent minister, etc., and on the other hand, it shall not be late for the period of compensation.

C. The lower court’s dismissal of the claim by the Plaintiff on the ground that the order of compensation issued by the competent minister is not subject to administrative litigation is erroneous. However, if the Plaintiff’s request is without merit, it would result in the Plaintiff’s unfavorable dismissal of the claim after reversal of the lower judgment that only the Plaintiff appealed. Therefore, the lower judgment

(a)Article 31(3)(a) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 31(2) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act; Articles 31(5) and 36(1) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act; Articles 4(1) and 9(1)(c) of the Rules on the Procedure for Execution of Decisions for Compensation; Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

C. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu374 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 119) 94Da8037 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2612)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 plaintiffs, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

The Minister of Home Affairs

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu10137 delivered on December 2, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since Article 31(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, and Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of the Rules on the Execution Procedure of Compensation, etc., the Board of Audit and Inspection shall examine and determine whether accounting officials, etc. are liable for compensation and shall send a written adjudication of compensation specifying the reasons for such liability to the competent Minister, etc., and the competent Minister, etc., in receipt of such a written adjudication of compensation shall deliver the written adjudication of compensation to the relevant Minister of Audit and Inspection within the period determined by the Board of Audit and Inspection, and if the person liable for compensation fails to fulfill his liability within the specified period, the competent Minister, etc. shall entrust the head of the competent tax office with the execution of disposition on default, the amount of compensation, reasons for compensation and the period for compensation, etc., and the preparation of the written adjudication of compensation pursuant thereto, etc., which affected the relevant Minister’s independent disposition and the relevant Minister of Audit and Inspection, etc. shall not present the relevant administrative disposition and Inspection’s order of compensation.

However, according to the provisions of Articles 31(2) and (3), 36(1), and 40(2) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, when the Board of Audit and Inspection makes a determination of compensation, the competent Minister, etc. shall execute it according to the contents of the said determination. If the person concerned or the competent Minister, etc., who recognizes that the determination of compensation is unlawful, requests a review by the Board of Audit and Inspection and the Board of Audit and Inspection, and objects again to the determination of review by the Board of Audit and Inspection, they shall be contested through administrative litigation. Therefore, in cases where the competent Minister, etc., claims illegality of the determination of compensation on the ground that the determination of compensation is not liable for compensation, the order of compensation itself made by the competent Minister, etc., in addition to the procedure for objection to the above recognition, may not be disputed separately from the illegality of the determination of compensation, and it is necessary to recognize that the order of compensation itself is subject to an administrative litigation separately established, and it shall not be deemed that it does not affect the existing determination of compensation obligation of the Board of Audit and Inspection.

Thus, since the above compensation order constitutes an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation, the court below judged this order is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation.

However, the plaintiffs asserts that the above order of compensation is invalid because there are significant and apparent defects since 20 days after the date when the Board of Audit and Inspection received the original order of compensation within 20 days from the date when the competent Minister, etc. received the order of compensation from the Board of Audit and Inspection, in violation of the provisions of Article 31(3) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act and Articles 2(2) and 4(1) of the Rules on the Procedure for Execution of Compensation, etc., the Board of Audit and Inspection issued the order of compensation with the due date set at the latest time limit of compensation. Thus, the provisions of Article 31(3) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, which provides that the competent Minister, etc. shall issue the order of compensation within 20 days from the date when the Board of Audit and Inspection received the original order of compensation from the Board of Audit and Inspection, shall not be deemed to have any disadvantage to the person liable for compensation, and even if the defendant violated the provisions of the above three-day period of compensation order of the Board of Audit and Inspection, it shall not be deemed unlawful or unlawful until the said time limit of compensation.

Ultimately, the lower court’s dismissal of the claim after reversal of the lower judgment’s judgment in the instant case, which only the Plaintiffs appealed, is disadvantageous to the Plaintiffs, and thus, should maintain the lower judgment.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)