A. Whether a decision to dismiss an application to suspend the validity of an administrative disposition can be a ground for objection with its own legitimacy (negative)

B. Whether there is a need to refuse or suspend the application for permission to meet the prison warden (negative)

A. In a case of an application seeking suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition or suspension of execution, whether it is not necessary to determine the legitimacy of the administrative disposition itself, and whether it is necessary to suspend the validity or execution of the administrative disposition, i.e., whether the administrative disposition exists or not under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and thus, the decision dismissing the application for suspension of the validity on the ground that it fails to meet

B. The rejection disposition against an application for permission is merely to bring about the same condition as the disposition did not exist, and it does not include cases where an active state is created, such as ordering the administrative agency to take a certain measure against the above person. Thus, even if the validity of the rejection disposition against an application for permission is suspended by the warden of the prison, it does not give an order to the above person in the above place of prison to grant permission for meeting, and it does not necessarily lead to an interview, and therefore, it does not necessarily go against the disposition to refuse to grant permission for meeting. Therefore, the validity of the disposition to refuse to grant permission is

(b)Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Order 90Du12 (Gong1990,1802) dated July 19, 1990; Order 90Du13 dated December 26, 1990 (Gong1991,641) dated March 2, 1991 (Gong1991,102) dated March 2, 1991; Order 62Nu9 dated June 29, 1962 (Gong10No14) dated July 23, 1973

Kim Tae-tae et al. (Attorney Seo-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Red Correctional Institution;

Seoul High Court Order 91Nu101 Dated March 15, 1991

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In the case of applying for suspension or suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition, the validity of the administrative disposition itself is not determined, but it is necessary to suspend the effect or execution of the administrative disposition. In other words, the existence or absence of the requirements under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act can only be determined, and the application for suspension of its validity cannot be a ground for objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 86Du5, Mar. 21, 1986; Decision 91Du1, Mar. 2, 1991; etc.). Further, even if the validity of the application is suspended, the rejection disposition on the application for suspension of its validity is merely the same condition as that of the administrative disposition, and it does not constitute a ground for objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Nu2696, Jun. 26, 196).

Therefore, even if the validity of the disposition of this case, which the head of the Hong prison rejected the meeting between the applicants, is suspended, this does not mean that the above order the head of the above prison to permit the meeting, and as a matter of course, it does not go to the extent that the above order to the head of the above prison is not sufficient to avoid any irrecoverable damage caused by the disposition of refusal to permit the meeting, and therefore, it is not necessary to suspend the validity of the disposition of refusal to permit the meeting of this case. In this regard, the court below dismissed the application for refusal to permit the meeting

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)