If a Path Is Opened for Neighbors to Contest an Adjudication That Reversed a Refusal Disposition, What Changes When That Adjudication Is Revoked: Four Questions on Administrative Litigation Act Amendment Bill No. 2218346
This is a PRO SE editorial question written after reading the National Participation Legislation Center's National Assembly legislative status screen and the bill text PDF, the current provisions of the Administrative Litigation Act and the Administrative Appeals Act as displayed on the Korea Law Information Center on October 16, 2026, and the text of Supreme Court Decision 2015Du45045. It is neither a citizen's opinion nor an opinion submitted to the National Assembly, and it is not advice on an individual permit dispute or lawsuit. It covers the bill's progress only as shown on the screen on the reference date.
Bill No. 2218346, a partial amendment to the Administrative Litigation Act, seeks to provide that where a person other than the person who filed the administrative appeal sues to revoke an adjudication that revoked a refusal disposition or confirmed its invalidity, or an adjudication ordering performance of an obligation, that person's legal interest may not be denied on the ground that the person may contest a subsequent disposition. The entry places the bill alongside the current provisions of the Administrative Litigation Act and the Administrative Appeals Act and Supreme Court Decision 2015Du45045 of October 31, 2017, which addressed the same issue, and leaves the points that arise as questions.
The Materials Read and Their Stage
This text reads one bill proposed by a member of the National Assembly. Bill No. 2218346, the partial amendment bill to the Administrative Litigation Act, was proposed by Assemblymember Im Mi-ae et al. (19 members) on April 15, 2026 at the 434th Session of the National Assembly (Extraordinary Session). The competent committee is the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and the National Assembly progress table shows only up to the referral on April 16, 2026. Tabling, the examination report, and the resolution were not displayed on the screen as of the confirmation reference date.
After reading the Reasons for Proposal and Principal Contents on the screen, the Reasons for Proposal, the amending provisions, the Supplementary Provisions, and the table comparing new and old provisions were read in the bill text PDF. Because the heading of the bill text and the provision titles in the comparison table are written in Chinese characters, this text converts the notation into Hangul. The hwp file on the same screen was not read.
The Reasons for Proposal states that such cases are dismissed without prejudice because of the position of the Supreme Court precedent that, where neighboring residents, etc. challenge an adjudication, legally protected interest is not recognized on the ground that a lawsuit is possible against the subsequent disposition, but it does not state the case number of the precedent. This text read, at the National Law Information Center, the Supreme Court Decision 2015Du45045 decided October 31, 2017, which decided the same issue. Whether the precedent referred to in the Reasons for Proposal is this decision is not confirmed in the bill, and linking the two is a reading of this text.
Sources for this section: National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislation Status: Partial Amendment Bill to the Administrative Litigation Act (No. 2218346, Assemblymember Im Mi-ae et al., 19 members) · Supreme Court Decision 2015Du45045 decided October 31, 2017 (full text of the precedent at the National Law Information Center)
What the current provisions and the precedent provide
Article 2 (1) subparagraph 1 of the current Administrative Litigation Act (Act No. 21615, enforced May 12, 2026) includes adjudications on administrative appeals among dispositions, etc. Article 12 enables a person with a legally protected interest in seeking revocation of a disposition, etc. to bring an action for revocation, and Article 35 enables a person with a legally protected interest in seeking confirmation to bring an action for confirmation of invalidity. Article 19 makes dispositions, etc. the object of an action for revocation, but limits an action for revocation of adjudication to cases based on grounds of illegality inherent in the adjudication itself. Article 29 (1) provides that a final and conclusive judgment of revocation has effect also on third parties, and Article 30 provides that a final and conclusive judgment of revocation binds the administrative agency that is a party and the related administrative agencies.
Article 43 of the current Administrative Appeals Act (Act No. 19269, enforced March 21, 2023) provides for an adjudication to revoke or change the disposition or to order a change where a revocation appeal has grounds (paragraph (3)), an adjudication confirming the existence or non-existence of the effect where a confirmation-of-nullity-etc. appeal has grounds (paragraph (4)), and an adjudication to make a disposition upon the application or to order a disposition where a performance-of-duty appeal has grounds (paragraph (5)). Article 49 (1) provides that an adjudication sustaining the claim binds the respondent and the related administrative agencies, and paragraphs (2) and (3) provide that where a refusal disposition is revoked or an adjudication ordering performance of a disposition is issued, the administrative agency shall make a disposition on the prior application in accordance with the intent of the adjudication. Article 48 provides that an authenticated copy of the written adjudication is served on the parties and a transcript on the intervenors, and Article 20 enables an interested third party to participate in the appeal until before the decision.
Supreme Court Decision 2015Du45045 held that where a refusal disposition is revoked in an adjudication, there is no legally protected interest in seeking revocation of the adjudication. The reasons for the judgment cite four grounds. The administrative agency may again refuse on new grounds even after the adjudication. If a subsequent disposition taken pursuant to the adjudication is unlawful, the subsequent disposition can be challenged directly. The adjudication alone causes no change in third parties' rights, and a change arises only upon the subsequent disposition. Even if a judgment revoking the adjudication becomes final and conclusive, the state of infringement remains unless the subsequent disposition is separately revoked. The judgment also added the circumstance that in this case an apartment had been completed on the project site.
Sources for this section: Korean Law Information Center, current Administrative Litigation Act (Act No. 21615, in force May 12, 2026) · National Law Information Center, Current Administrative Appeals Act (Act No. 19269, enforced March 21, 2023) · Supreme Court Decision 2015Du45045 decided October 31, 2017 (full text of the precedent at the National Law Information Center)
What the Bill Would Change
The bill makes the current sentence of Article 12 paragraph (1) and newly adds paragraphs (2) and (3). Bill Article 12 (2) provides that where, with respect to a disposition refusing an application by an applicant for an administrative appeal, an adjudication under Article 43 (3) or (4) of the Administrative Appeals Act is issued, and a person other than the applicant for the administrative appeal brings an action for revocation of adjudication seeking revocation of that adjudication, the plaintiff's legally protected interest shall not be denied on the ground that the plaintiff may bring an action for revocation or an action for confirmation of invalidity against a subsequent disposition taken in accordance with the intent of the adjudication. Bill Article 12 (3) applies this mutatis mutandis to an action for revocation of adjudication against a performance-of-duty adjudication under Article 43 (5).
The bill adds a latter sentence to Article 35 to apply Article 12 (2) and (3) mutatis mutandis to an action for confirmation of invalidity targeting an adjudication. The Reasons for Proposal explain that where an administrative agency refuses a permit or license application and the company prevails in the administrative appeal, the administrative agency cannot bring a lawsuit because of the binding force; if residents challenge the adjudication, the case is dismissed without prejudice; and even if they challenge the subsequent disposition, it is difficult to prevail on the ground that the disposition is one made in accordance with the binding force.
Article 1 of the Supplementary Provisions proposes enforcement from the day on which six months have elapsed after promulgation, and Article 2 provides that the amended provisions apply also to administrative litigation pending at the time of enforcement.
| Provision | Current | Bill | What changes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article 12(2) of the bill | Whether there is a legal interest is left to the wording of Article 12 and to case law | Where a person other than the claimant contests an adjudication revoking, or confirming the nullity of, a refusal disposition, the interest is not denied on the ground that the person may contest the subsequent disposition | Forecloses by statute one of the reasons given in the judgments |
| Article 12(3) of the bill | No such provision | Paragraph (2) applies mutatis mutandis to an action for revocation of an adjudication ordering performance of a duty | Adjudications ordering a disposition or making it directly are treated the same |
| Latter part of Article 35 of the bill | Prescribes only standing to sue in an action for confirmation of nullity, etc. | Article 12(2) and (3) apply mutatis mutandis to an action for confirmation of nullity, etc. against an adjudication | The same treatment applies where the challenge is by way of confirmation of nullity |
| Addenda | Not applicable | Enters into force six months after promulgation; also applies to administrative actions pending at the time of entry into force | Takes immediate effect on pending cases |
Sources for this section: National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislation Status: Partial Amendment Bill to the Administrative Litigation Act (No. 2218346, Assemblymember Im Mi-ae et al., 19 members) · Korean Law Information Center, current Administrative Litigation Act (Act No. 21615, in force May 12, 2026) · National Law Information Center, Current Administrative Appeals Act (Act No. 19269, enforced March 21, 2023)
If only the ground that the subsequent disposition can be challenged is removed, what happens to the other reasons cited in the judgment?
Bill Article 12 (2) states only that the plaintiff's legally protected interest is not denied on the ground that the plaintiff may challenge the subsequent disposition. Supreme Court Decision 2015Du45045 held, besides that reason, also that an adjudication alone causes no change in third parties' rights and that even if the adjudication is revoked, the infringement remains unless the subsequent disposition is separately revoked, and thus regarded revocation of the adjudication as not an effective and direct remedy. The text of the bill does not directly address these two reasons.
Whether the court can reach the same conclusion on the remaining reasons alone, excluding the point that the subsequent disposition can be challenged in the future, is not determined by the provisions. Further, because the bill blocks only one reason and leaves intact the entire determination of whether the plaintiff is a person with a legally protected interest in that adjudication, a resident whose interest is not recognized on other grounds may be dismissed without prejudice regardless of this provision. The range of residents to which the protection of the right to a healthy environment, etc., as stated in the Reasons for Proposal, extends remains to individual statutes.
If the aim is to change the conclusion of the precedent, is wording that blocks only one of the reasons supporting that conclusion sufficient? Or should the text be written so that the determination that revocation of the adjudication is not an effective remedy is not made in such cases?
Sources for this section: National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislation Status: Partial Amendment Bill to the Administrative Litigation Act (No. 2218346, Assemblymember Im Mi-ae et al., 19 members) · Supreme Court Decision 2015Du45045 decided October 31, 2017 (full text of the precedent at the National Law Information Center) · Korean Law Information Center, current Administrative Litigation Act (Act No. 21615, in force May 12, 2026)
If the adjudication is revoked, what becomes of the subsequent disposition already issued?
Under Article 49 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, the administrative agency makes a disposition anew in accordance with the intent of the adjudication, so by the time a resident brings an action for revocation of adjudication, a subsequent disposition such as a permit may already have been issued. Article 29 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a final and conclusive judgment of revocation has effect also on third parties, and Article 30 (1) provides that it binds related administrative agencies. However, the duty of re-disposition under Article 30 (2) is provided for cases where the disposition revoked by judgment is one refusing an application, and what becomes of a subsequent disposition taken pursuant to an adjudication sustaining the claim after that adjudication is revoked is written neither in the current provisions nor in the bill.
The judgment held that even if a judgment revoking the adjudication becomes final and conclusive, the state of infringement persists as long as the subsequent disposition is not separately revoked. If this explanation holds, then even if a resident prevails in an action for revocation of adjudication, in order to eliminate the subsequent disposition the resident must wait for the administrative agency's ex officio revocation or separately challenge the subsequent disposition. Although the two lawsuits can be brought together through joinder of related claims under Article 10 (2), the bill does not provide such a route.
If only the path of an action for revocation of adjudication is opened while the effect of that judgment on the subsequent disposition is not determined, the plaintiff may have to litigate the same dispute twice. Should the statute determine whether the subsequent disposition ceases to have effect once the judgment revoking the adjudication becomes final and conclusive, whether the administrative agency bears a duty to revoke it, or whether a separate lawsuit is needed?
Sources for this section: National Law Information Center, Current Administrative Appeals Act (Act No. 19269, enforced March 21, 2023) · Korean Law Information Center, current Administrative Litigation Act (Act No. 21615, in force May 12, 2026) · Supreme Court Decision 2015Du45045 decided October 31, 2017 (full text of the precedent at the National Law Information Center) · National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislation Status: Partial Amendment Bill to the Administrative Litigation Act (No. 2218346, Assemblymember Im Mi-ae et al., 19 members)
Is the proviso to Article 19, requiring illegality inherent in the adjudication itself, to be left unchanged?
The current proviso to Article 19 limits an action for revocation of adjudication to cases based on grounds of illegality inherent in the adjudication itself. The bill amends only Articles 12 and 35 and leaves Article 19 unchanged. What the bill opens up is one branch of the procedural requirement of legally protected interest, and what grounds may be asserted for challenging the adjudication is still determined by Article 19.
The reason residents challenge an adjudication is usually that the committee wrongly revoked the refusal disposition, that is, that the adjudication's determination of the merits is wrong. Whether such an argument can be regarded as illegality inherent in the adjudication when a third party challenges an adjudication sustaining the claim is not determined in the provisions and the judgment read by this text. This text has not read other precedents deciding that point.
Even if the procedural requirement is passed under Article 12 (2), if the grounds that may be asserted under the proviso to Article 19 are read narrowly, what the plaintiff can actually argue is reduced. Where a third party challenges an adjudication sustaining the claim, is there not a need to sort out how to read the inherent illegality under the proviso to Article 19 together with this bill?
Sources for this section: Korean Law Information Center, current Administrative Litigation Act (Act No. 21615, in force May 12, 2026) · National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislation Status: Partial Amendment Bill to the Administrative Litigation Act (No. 2218346, Assemblymember Im Mi-ae et al., 19 members) · Supreme Court Decision 2015Du45045 decided October 31, 2017 (full text of the precedent at the National Law Information Center)
When does a resident who did not participate in the appeal learn of the adjudication, and by when must suit be brought?
Article 48 of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that an authenticated copy of the written adjudication is served on the parties and a transcript on the intervenors. There is no provision that notifies neighboring residents who did not participate in the appeal of the adjudication, and Article 49 (6) provides only for notifying an interested person in cases where a disposition notified to interested persons under statutes is revoked or changed by an adjudication. When this provision reaches neighboring residents who did not participate in the appeal is not determined by the text alone.
Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act requires an action for revocation to be brought within 90 days from the day on which a person becomes aware of the existence of a disposition, etc. and within one year from the day on which it exists, and permits the one-year period to be exceeded where there are justifiable grounds. When a resident who did not participate in the appeal comes to know that an adjudication was rendered, and how that day is proved, is not determined by the provisions. The bill does not amend the statutory period for filing suit or the notification procedure.
If a path for third parties to challenge an adjudication is opened, is it not necessary to determine also the route and the period by which such person learns of the adjudication? Should the side of bringing residents into the procedure in advance through participation in the appeal under Articles 20 and 21 of the Administrative Appeals Act be revised together?
Sources for this section: National Law Information Center, Current Administrative Appeals Act (Act No. 19269, enforced March 21, 2023) · Korean Law Information Center, current Administrative Litigation Act (Act No. 21615, in force May 12, 2026) · National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislation Status: Partial Amendment Bill to the Administrative Litigation Act (No. 2218346, Assemblymember Im Mi-ae et al., 19 members)
Commencement and remaining issues
Article 1 of the Supplementary Provisions proposes enforcement from the day on which six months have elapsed after promulgation. The proposed enforcement condition is not a fixed date. Because Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions applies the amended provisions also to administrative litigation pending at the time of enforcement, the standard for judgment changes for actions for revocation of adjudication pending before a lower court or before the Supreme Court on appeal as of the enforcement date. Whether it reaches cases in which a dismissal on procedural grounds has become final and conclusive, or persons who could not bring suit because the statutory period elapsed, is not stated in the Supplementary Provisions.
The applicant who prevailed in the adjudication may have proceeded with the business in reliance on the binding force of the adjudication and the subsequent disposition. If the bill is applied immediately to pending cases, the position of that applicant changes in the middle of the litigation, and the bill contains no transitional provision or explanation on this point.
This text has not read the examination report and minutes of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, other amendment bills to the same Act (for example, Bill No. 2216889 introducing an action for performance of duty appearing in the National Assembly Legislation Status search list), the contents of the 2026 amendment to the Administrative Litigation Act, or other precedents on third-party actions for revocation of adjudication. It neither supports nor opposes the bill, and does not predict the outcome of its processing.
Sources for this section: National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislation Status: Partial Amendment Bill to the Administrative Litigation Act (No. 2218346, Assemblymember Im Mi-ae et al., 19 members) · Korean Law Information Center, current Administrative Litigation Act (Act No. 21615, in force May 12, 2026)
Sources and verification notes
- National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislation Status: Partial Amendment Bill to the Administrative Litigation Act (No. 2218346, Assemblymember Im Mi-ae et al., 19 members) ↗
After reading the proposal information, the Reasons for Proposal and Principal Contents, and the National Assembly progress table, the Reasons for Proposal, the amending provisions, the Supplementary Provisions, and the table comparing new and old provisions in the bill text PDF received from the screen were read. Chinese-character notations in the bill text were converted into Hangul. The hwp file and the examination report were not read.
Checked 2026-10-16 - Korean Law Information Center, current Administrative Litigation Act (Act No. 21615, in force May 12, 2026) ↗
On the provision screens of the same lsiSeq, Articles 2, 10, 12, 19, 20, 29, 30, and 35 were read. The background and the Supplementary Provisions of the 2026 amendment were not read.
Checked 2026-10-16 - National Law Information Center, Current Administrative Appeals Act (Act No. 19269, enforced March 21, 2023) ↗
On the provision screens of the same lsiSeq, Articles 13, 20, 21, 43, 48, and 49 were read. The Enforcement Decree and the committee operation rules were not read.
Checked 2026-10-16 - Supreme Court Decision 2015Du45045 decided October 31, 2017 (full text of the precedent at the National Law Information Center) ↗
The Holdings, Summary of Decision, Reference Provisions, and full text of the reasons were read. The judgment of the court below and the first-instance judgment were not read. Whether this decision is the precedent referred to in the Reasons for Proposal is not confirmed in the bill.
Checked 2026-10-16
General information and research commentary, not legal advice. Each entry identifies its facts, assumptions and sources.
↑ Back to the title