Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Illegality of an Adverse Disposition Imposed Without Prior Notice or an Opportunity to Submit Opinions, and the Effect of Prior Notice in the Form of Administrative Guidance
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Nov. 14, 2000, 99Du5870 (judgment)
Case name: 지하수개발이용수리취소및원상복구명령취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
If the administrative authority gave advance notice in the form of administrative guidance and the party promised to voluntarily close the well, may the authority revoke the acceptance of the report without prior notice or an opportunity to submit opinions under the Administrative Procedures Act?
Holding
Where an adverse disposition is imposed without prior notice or an opportunity to submit opinions, that disposition is unlawful and cannot escape revocation unless it falls within an exception prescribed by law. The Supreme Court affirmed the court below's holding that prior notice in the form of administrative guidance or the promise to voluntarily close the well alone does not fall within such an exception.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
행정청이 침해적 행정처분을 함에 있어서 당사자에게 위와 같은 사전통지를 하거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 아니하였다면 사전통지를 하지 않거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 아니하여도 되는 예외적인 경우에 해당하지 아니하는 한 그 처분은 위법하여 취소를 면할 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Where, in making an infringing administrative disposition, the administrative agency fails to give prior notice as described above or fails to afford an opportunity to submit opinions, unless the case falls within an exceptional circumstance in which prior notice need not be given or an opportunity to submit opinions need not be afforded, the disposition is unlawful and cannot escape revocation.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
예외적인 경우에 해당하지 아니하는 한 그 처분은 위법하여 취소를 면할 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
unless the case falls within an exceptional circumstance ... the disposition is unlawful and cannot escape revocation
Factors
- 처분하고자 하는 원인이 되는 사실과 처분의 내용 및 법적 근거
- 의견을 제출할 수 있다는 뜻과 의견을 제출하지 아니하는 경우의 처리방법
- 당해 처분의 성질상 의견청취가 현저히 곤란하거나 명백히 불필요하다고 인정될 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우
- 행정지도방식에 의한 사전고지나 그에 따른 당사자의 자진 폐공의 약속
Unofficial English translation
• The facts giving rise to the intended disposition, the content of the disposition, and its legal grounds
• A statement to the effect that opinions may be submitted and the method of handling the case where opinions are not submitted
• Where there is a reasonable ground for recognizing that, by the nature of the disposition, a hearing of opinions is manifestly difficult or manifestly unnecessary
• Prior notice in the form of administrative guidance or the party's promise of voluntary abandonment of the well made in response thereto
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
행정절차법 제21조 제1항, 제4항, 제22조 제1항 내지 제4항에 의하면
Unofficial English translation
Under Article 21 (1) and (4) and Article 22 (1) through (4) of the Administrative Procedures Act
Decisions referred to
None listed
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Even where the acceptance disposition concerned a hot spring district in which it was not permitted under statutes and regulations from the outset, so that revocation was unavoidable, may it still fall within the exception where a hearing of opinions is manifestly unnecessary?
If the exceptions to prior notice and hearing of opinions under Article 21 or Article 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act are amended, this reading is to be re-checked.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading by another AI family (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 6 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on axis 6 (Relation to precedent) and axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The original text's explanation of the exception for omitting procedure may be read as setting out a new standard, but because its relationship to precedent is not made explicit, it may also be read as Cannot be determined.
행정절차법 제21조 제1항, 제4항, 제22조 제1항 내지 제4항에 의하면Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Even where the acceptance disposition concerned a hot spring district in which it was not permitted under statutes and regulations from the outset, so that revocation was unavoidable, may it still fall within the exception where a hearing of opinions is manifestly unnecessary?” vs Independent “Beyond the prior notice through administrative guidance and the promise to voluntarily close the well, what additional concrete circumstances must be present before a hearing of opinions falls within the exception of being manifestly unnecessary?”
The primary reading asks whether the illegality of the original acceptance and the unavoidability of revocation constitute the exception, while the independent reading asks in general about the additional circumstances required for the exception to arise.
행정청이 침해적 행정처분을 함에 있어서 당사자에게 위와 같은 사전통지를 하거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 아니하였다면 사전통지를 하지 않거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 아니하여도 되는 예외적인 경우에 해당하지 아니하는 한 그 처분은 위법하여 취소를 면할 수 없다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: Regarding the disposition in this case, whereby the defendant, having overlooked that the site was within a hot spring district, accepted the plaintiff's groundwater development and use report on March 29, 1997, and then on February 4, 1998 revoked the acceptance disposition and issued an order to restore the original state, the court below held that there was no evidence that prior notice or an opportunity to submit opinions had been provided, and that prior notice in the form of administrative guidance or the promise to voluntarily close the well alone did not constitute an exception, and accordingly granted the plaintiff's claim.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court affirmed the court below's holding as proper. Holding that the disposition in this case was made after the Administrative Procedures Act took effect, so that Article 2 of the Additional Provisions of the same Act did not apply, the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the party's opinions have been heard through a hearing or public hearing procedure prescribed by other statutes or regulations
- Where, given the nature of the disposition, there is reasonable ground to recognize that a hearing of opinions is extremely difficult or manifestly unnecessary
- Where the disposition was already in progress when the Administrative Procedures Act took effect, so that the transitional provision of the Additional Provisions applies
Record verification notes
Before asserting procedural illegality, one first checks from the Records whether the administrative authority actually notified, before the disposition, the cause of the disposition, the content of the disposition, the legal grounds, and the method for submitting opinions.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 행정청이 침해적 행정처분을 함에 있어서 당사자에게 행정절차법상의 사전통지를 하지 않거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 아니한 경우, 그 처분이 위법한 것인지 여부(한정 적극) [2] 행정청이 온천지구임을 간과하여 지하수개발·이용신고를 수리하였다가 행정절차법상의 사전통지를 하거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 아니한 채 그 신고수리처분을 취소하고 원상복구명령의 처분을 한 경우, 행정지도방식에 의한 사전고지나 그에 따른 당사자의 자진 폐공의 약속 등의 사유만으로는 사전통지 등을 하지 않아도 되는 행정절차법 소정의 예외의 경우에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다는 이유로 그 처분은 위법하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a disposition is unlawful where, in making an infringing administrative disposition, the administrative agency fails to give prior notice under the Administrative Procedures Act or fails to afford an opportunity to submit opinions (limited affirmative) [2] A case in which the administrative agency, having overlooked that the area was a hot spring district and accepted a groundwater development and use report, canceled that disposition accepting the report and issued a disposition ordering restoration to the original state, without giving prior notice under the Administrative Procedures Act or affording an opportunity to submit opinions, and the disposition was held unlawful on the ground that, by reason merely of prior notice in the form of administrative guidance or the party's promise of voluntary abandonment of the well made in response thereto, the case could not be regarded as falling within the exceptional circumstances prescribed in the Administrative Procedures Act in which prior notice or the like need not be given
Summary of the holding
[1] 행정절차법 제21조 제1항, 제4항, 제22조 제1항 내지 제4항에 의하면, 행정청이 당사자에게 의무를 과하거나 권익을 제한하는 처분을 하는 경우에는 미리 처분하고자 하는 원인이 되는 사실과 처분의 내용 및 법적 근거, 이에 대하여 의견을 제출할 수 있다는 뜻과 의견을 제출하지 아니하는 경우의 처리방법 등의 사항을 당사자 등에게 통지하여야 하고, 다른 법령 등에서 필요적으로 청문을 실시하거나 공청회를 개최하도록 규정하고 있지 아니한 경우에도 당사자 등에게 의견제출의 기회를 주어야 하되, 당해 처분의 성질상 의견청취가 현저히 곤란하거나 명백히 불필요하다고 인정될 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우 등에는 처분의 사전통지나 의견청취를 하지 아니할 수 있도록 규정하고 있으므로, 행정청이 침해적 행정처분을 함에 있어서 당사자에게 위와 같은 사전통지를 하거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 아니하였다면 사전통지를 하지 않거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 아니하여도 되는 예외적인 경우에 해당하지 아니하는 한 그 처분은 위법하여 취소를 면할 수 없다. [2] 행정청이 온천지구임을 간과하여 지하수개발·이용신고를 수리하였다가 행정절차법상의 사전통지를 하거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 아니한 채 그 신고수리처분을 취소하고 원상복구명령의 처분을 한 경우, 행정지도방식에 의한 사전고지나 그에 따른 당사자의 자진 폐공의 약속 등의 사유만으로는 사전통지 등을 하지 않아도 되는 행정절차법 소정의 예외의 경우에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다는 이유로 그 처분은 위법하다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고의 부담으로 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The cost of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 행정절차법 제21조 제1항, 제4항, 제22조 제1항, 제2항, 제3항, 제4항, 행정소송법 제1조[행정처분일반], 제19조 [2] 행정절차법 제21조 제1항, 제4항, 제22조 제1항, 제2항, 제3항, 제4항, 행정소송법 제1조[행정처분일반], 제19조, 구 지하수법(1997. 1. 13. 법률 제5286호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제7조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger