Supreme Court: "Criminal Punishment Notice in Correction Orders Constitutes 'Disposition' Subject to Administrative Litigation"

Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education Issues Correction Order to Kindergartens... 1st and 2nd Trials Dismiss as "Not a Disposition"
Supreme Court: "Correction Order Separate from Audit Result Notification... Provides Guidance on Administrative Sanctions"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that issuing a corrective order, which guides administrative sanctions after an administrative agency fails to implement measures following an audit, constitutes an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation.

The Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) announced on the 14th that it overturned the lower court's ruling that dismissed the lawsuit filed by Mr. A, the founder of a kindergarten in Gyeonggi Province, against the Provincial Office of Education seeking nullification of the corrective order, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

The Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education conducted an audit of Mr. A's kindergarten in 2018 and notified him of the audit results, which included violations and required measures. The Office urged compliance with the measures two to three times, but when Mr. A did not respond, it issued a corrective order in October 2020. The current Early Childhood Education Act stipulates that the competent educational authority may order corrections regarding kindergarten facilities, equipment, curriculum, and tuition increase rates.

In response, Mr. A filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the corrective order. He argued that since the 2018 audit result notification did not specify the legal basis, Article 30 of the Early Childhood Education Act, he had no obligation to comply with the measures.

The key issue in the trial was whether the Office of Education's corrective order constitutes an administrative "disposition" subject to an appeal lawsuit. If it is an administrative disposition, its legality can be challenged through an appeal lawsuit; however, if it is interpreted merely as a kind of guidance urging compliance, the lawsuit itself would not be valid.

The first and second instance courts viewed the corrective order as merely a repeated notice from the Office of Education and dismissed Mr. A's claim, ruling that the lawsuit was not valid.

However, the Supreme Court held that the Office of Education's corrective order should be regarded as a disposition subject to an appeal lawsuit, separate from the audit result notification.

The court stated, "Since the Early Childhood Education Act was not specified as the legal basis in the audit result notification, it is difficult to recognize the notification as a corrective order under Article 30, Paragraph 1 of the Early Childhood Education Act."

Furthermore, "The corrective order informs that failure to comply within the designated period without justifiable reason may result in administrative sanctions such as reduction of capacity or suspension of child recruitment, and may also be subject to criminal penalties. This should be regarded as a disposition that substantially affects the rights, obligations, or legal status of the citizen," the court ruled.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.