1. Overview of the Case
a. Party represented by Barun Law
Defendant, Metropolitan Government A
b. Background of the Case
On November 27, 2015, the plaintiff reported 1,141 instances of illegal resale of apartment subscription rights in the metropolitan area to a metropolitan government ("Metropolitan Government A") and other authorities. Of these, investigations were conducted into 52 cases under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Government A, resulting in finalized criminal convictions. Thereafter, on June 21, 2019, the plaintiff requested that Metropolitan Government A pay a reporting reward of KRW 85 million for the 52 cases. However, on July 1, 2019, Metropolitan Government A issued a disposition refusing payment on the grounds of budgetary constraints and concerns over the excessive payment of rewards to a single individual.
c. Litigation Proceedings
In response, on July 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission regarding the refusal disposition. Subsequently, on March 20, 2020, on the ground that no adjudication had been rendered even after 60 days from the filing of the administrative appeal, the plaintiff filed an action seeking revocation of the refusal disposition. The 바카라가이드 of first instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the payment of reporting rewards for the reporting of resale of subscription rights, etc. under Article 92 of the Housing Act constituted a bound discretionary act, and the appellate 바카라가이드 affirmed this judgment. Metropolitan Government A then filed a further appeal to the Supreme 바카라가이드.
2. HoldingThe Supreme 바카라가이드 reversed the judgment of the lower 바카라가이드 and remanded the case to the Suwon High 바카라가이드.
3. Grounds for the DecisionThe Supreme 바카라가이드 held that while Article 92 of the Housing Act provides that a reward may be paid, 바카라가이드 92(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a reward shall be paid. Taking this discrepancy into account, together with the contents of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act and the nature of the reporting reward system under Article 92 of the Housing Act as a beneficial administrative disposition, the Supreme 바카라가이드 determined that the payment of rewards under Article 92 of the Housing Act constitutes a discretionary act in which the mayor or provincial governor is vested with discretion as to whether to make such payment.
4. Our Arguments and RoleWe argued that the relevant provision of the Enforcement Decree exceeded the scope of delegation under the parent statute and was therefore invalid, and that, in light of relevant precedents, the payment of reporting rewards by a mayor or provincial governor constitutes a discretionary administrative act. We further contended that the lower 바카라가이드 judgment, which held that the refusal disposition did not constitute an unlawful deviation from or abuse of discretion and that the payment of reporting rewards by a mayor or provincial governor constitutes a bound discretionary act, was unlawful in that it misinterpreted the meaning of Article 92 of the Housing Act and misconstrued the legal principles governing discretionary administrative acts.
5. Significance of the DecisionIn a situation where 바카라가이드 92 of the Housing Act provides that rewards may be paid, while 바카라가이드 92(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that rewards shall be paid, the Supreme 바카라가이드 held, after comprehensively considering the content of the Enforcement Decree and the purpose of the reporting reward system, that the payment of reporting rewards constitutes a discretionary act rather than a bound discretionary act. This decision is expected to serve as a useful reference in practice for distinguishing between bound discretionary acts and discretionary acts.
More importantly in practice, the Supreme 바카라가이드 also held that the plaintiff complied with the statutory filing period. Under the argument based on the prevailing practice described in 바카라가이드 Practice Manual: Administrative Litigation—namely, that pursuant to Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, an action for revocation must be filed within 90 days from the date the plaintiff becomes aware of the disposition and within one year from the date the disposition is made, and must be brought within whichever of these periods expires first, such that the lapse of either period renders the action inadmissible—the defendant argued as a ground of appeal that the plaintiff’s action was inadmissible and that the lower 바카라가이드 acted unlawfully by failing to examine this issue ex officio. In light of the Supreme 바카라가이드’s ruling, however, the 바카라가이드 did not adhere to the existing practical position regarding the filing period under Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act.
