A. The meaning of "same-class case" under Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act where an administrative litigation can be initiated without filing an administrative appeal

(b) The case holding that each medical doctor's license suspension case against those doctors who have rejected medical treatment in succession does not constitute "same type of case" in paragraph (a) above since the time and place the patient requested to provide medical treatment is the same person, and the situation of transfer to another hospital is completely different from the time and place the patient was requested to provide medical treatment;

A. In Article 18(3)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the term “where there has been a rejection ruling of an administrative appeal with respect to the same case” refers to not only the case in question but also the case in which homogeneity is recognized in basic respect with the case in question.

B. The case holding that each medical doctor's license suspension case against those doctors who have rejected medical treatment in succession does not constitute "same type of case" in paragraph (a) above since the time and place of request for medical treatment is the same person and the situation of transfer to another hospital is completely different from the time and place of request for medical treatment.

(a)Article 18(3)1 (b) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

Plaintiff

The Minister of Health and Welfare

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu9836 delivered on May 1, 1992

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding the ancillary claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant litigant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the part of the conjunctive claim in the lawsuit in this case against the non-party 1, who is the patient of this case, was avoided emergency measures under the Medical Service Act and was reported to the media by the plaintiff, and was subject to an administrative disposition of suspension of qualification such as the plaintiff for one month from the defendant on the same day, and filed an administrative appeal, but the decision of dismissal was rejected. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, it would have the same result even if the plaintiff had filed an administrative appeal. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the conjunctive claim in this case can be filed without going through an administrative appeal under Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, because it falls under Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and

2. However, Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides, where an administrative litigation can be instituted without filing an administrative appeal, the term "where an administrative appeal has already been dismissed in respect of the same kind of case" refers not only to the case in question but also to the case in question, where homogeneity has been recognized in the basic point of view. Accordingly, upon examining the facts of each violation of the Medical Service Act between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, according to the final judgment of the court below, the non-party 2 was sent to the above hospital's emergency room at around 03:50 on May 20, 190, and the plaintiff was sent to the above hospital's emergency room at the time of the emergency room at the time of the emergency, and the plaintiff was unable to immediately perform the operation at the time of the emergency room at the time of the above hospital's emergency room at the time of the first time, and the non-party 1 was notified of the suspension of qualifications to the plaintiff and the non-party 1's emergency room at the nearby hospital's hospital.

In light of the above facts, the case of suspending doctor's license on the ground that the plaintiff and the non-party 1's violation of the Medical Service Act is basically a case with homogeneity, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the case falls under the same kind of case as provided in Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Unlike the above, the court below committed an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the exclusive administrative appeal system, which rejected the defendant's main safety defense on the premise that it falls under the same kind of case as provided in the above Article.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers, the part concerning the conjunctive claim among the judgment below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.