Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Re-disposition after a procedural annulment and the limits of discretion review
Supreme Court, Jan. 14, 2005, 2003Du13045 (judgment)
Case name: 종합유선방송사업승인거부처분취소등
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
After the Seoul Administrative Court finally annulled the Broadcasting Commission's refusal of a relay cable operator's conversion approval application because the Commission had assessed it at a different reference point from its rival, may the Commission re-examine both as of the time of the re-disposition, is the resulting refusal a re-disposition under Article 30(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and was its approval of the rival an abuse of discretion?
Holding
Yes, and the approval of the rival was not an abuse of discretion. Where the ground for annulment is illegality in the procedure or method of the disposition, the agency may, following the gist of the final judgment, cure that defect and refuse the original application again, and such a decision is itself a re-disposition under Article 30(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act. The gist here was that both applicants be re-examined at one and the same reference point, so neither re-disposition breached the judgment's binding force. On discretion, the Commission, as a collegial body, may set specific criteria after hearing viewers, and the approval of the co-participant was not an abuse of discretion: the criteria did not breach the Broadcast Act or manifestly lack rationality, the item evaluations were not shown to lack validity, and the shared executives and the plan for joint operation did not make the co-participant and Company 3 a single operator in substance.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 취소사유가 행정처분의 절차, 방법의 위법으로 인한 것이라면 그 처분 행정청은 그 확정판결의 취지에 따라 그 위법사유를 보완하여 다시 종전의 신청에 대한 거부처분을 할 수 있고, 그러한 처분도 위 조항에 규정된 재처분에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
If the ground for cancellation is the illegality in the procedure or method of the administrative disposition, the administrative agency that rendered that disposition may, following the purport of that final and conclusive judgment, remedy that ground for illegality and again render a refusal disposition on the original application, and such disposition also constitutes a re-disposition as provided in the aforesaid Article.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이렇게 정해진 기준 및 방법에 따라 심사가 이루어졌음에도 불구하고 그 심사결과에 따른 처분이 위법하다고 하기 위해서는 그 기준 자체가 법령의 규정에 위반되거나 방송법의 목적 및 전환승인제도의 취지에 비추어 객관적으로 합리성 또는 타당성을 현저히 결여한 것이라거나, 그 심사기준에 설정된 각 항목별 평가가 타당성 없이 이루어졌다는 등의 사정이 있어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Even though the examination was conducted in accordance with the criteria and methods thus determined, in order for the disposition made on the basis of the results of such examination to be unlawful, the criterion itself must contravene the provisions of statutes and regulations, or must, in light of the purpose of the Broadcasting Act and the purport of the conversion approval system, be objectively and markedly lacking in reasonableness or appropriateness, or there must be circumstances such as that the evaluation of each item set forth in the examination criteria was made without appropriateness.
Factors
- 그 취소사유가 행정처분의 절차, 방법의 위법으로 인한 것이라면
- 그 처분 행정청은 그 확정판결의 취지에 따라 그 위법사유를 보완하여 다시 종전의 신청에 대한 거부처분을 할 수 있고
- 그 기준 자체가 법령의 규정에 위반되거나 방송법의 목적 및 전환승인제도의 취지에 비추어 객관적으로 합리성 또는 타당성을 현저히 결여한 것이라거나
- 그 심사기준에 설정된 각 항목별 평가가 타당성 없이 이루어졌다는 등의 사정이 있어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
• If the ground for cancellation is the illegality in the procedure or method of the administrative disposition,
• the administrative agency that rendered that disposition may, following the purport of that final and conclusive judgment, remedy that ground for illegality and again render a refusal disposition on the original application,
• the criterion itself must contravene the provisions of statutes and regulations, or must, in light of the purpose of the Broadcasting Act and the purport of the conversion approval system, be objectively and markedly lacking in reasonableness or appropriateness, or
• there must be circumstances such as that the evaluation of each item set forth in the examination criteria was made without appropriateness.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1992. 5. 26. 선고 91누5242 판결(공1992, 2040)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5242 decided May 26, 1992 (Gong 1992, 2040)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1992. 5. 26. 선고 91누5242 판결(공1992, 2040), 대법원 1997. 2. 4. 자 96두70 결정(공1997상, 670), 대법원 1998. 1. 7. 자 97두22 결정(공1998상, 532), 대법원 1999. 12. 28. 선고 98두1895 판결(공2000상, 402), 대법원 2002. 12. 11. 자 2002무22 결정(공2003상, 511), 대법원 2004. 1. 15. 자 2002무30 결정
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How far may the agency move the reference point for re-examination when the public notice has fixed an approval schedule on which the applicants relied?
The remanded judgment will show how the re-examination was carried out and what result it produced. An amendment to Article 30(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act or Article 9(3) of the Broadcast Act, or a later decision on the binding force of a final judgment in administrative cases, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How far may the agency move the reference point for re-examination when the public notice has fixed an approval schedule on which the applicants relied?” vs Independent “What limits would a final annulment judgment based on substantive illegality impose on a renewed refusal?”
The primary asks how far the reassessment date may be delayed despite reliance on an announced schedule, while the independent asks about renewed refusal after annulment for substantive illegality.
그 취소사유가 행정처분의 절차, 방법의 위법으로 인한 것이라면 그 처분 행정청은 그 확정판결의 취지에 따라 그 위법사유를 보완하여 다시 종전의 신청에 대한 거부처분을 할 수 있고, 그러한 처분도 위 조항에 규정된 재처분에 해당한다.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: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 10 October 2003 (2003Nu3606), read the Seoul Administrative Court's judgment of 26 December 2001 (2001Gu20659), final on 13 January 2002, as requiring the Commission to approve the plaintiff and refuse the co-participant, unless a new ground for refusing the plaintiff arose after the close of arguments in that case. It held that re-examining both on 30 July 2002 breached the judgment's binding force. It also held that the co-participant was in substance the same operator as Company 3, so the higher score it obtained showed criteria or evaluations without validity, and each re-disposition was an abuse of discretion.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court reversed on both grounds. Since the unlawfulness found was the differing reference points, and since the judgment had also allowed a delay of the examination point by a grace period, its gist was re-examination at one common point, not approval without re-examination; the re-examination at the time of the re-disposition cured the defect. On discretion, the Commission, a collegial body of nine commissioners, may set criteria after hearing viewers and publishing whether their views were reflected, and it was not bound to bar operators affiliated with an existing comprehensive cable operator. The shared executives and the plan for joint operation did not show that the co-participant and Company 3 were one operator.
Distinguishing conditions
- An annulment resting on substantive rather than procedural or methodological illegality, since the power to cure and refuse again is tied to that kind of ground.
- A final judgment that itself orders the agency to grant the application, since the Court read this one as ordering re-examination at one reference point.
- Criteria that violate statutory provisions or manifestly lack rationality or validity, or item evaluations carried out without validity.
Record verification notes
Read the final judgment to see what it actually ordered, a single reference point for both applicants or approval itself, since the whole re-disposition issue turns on that. Set the date chosen for re-examination against the trust created by the public notice's approval schedule, and check which version of Article 8(4) of the former Broadcast Act governed each reference point. On discretion, ask whether the criteria breached the Broadcast Act or manifestly lacked rationality, and treat affiliates' shared executives and joint-operation plans as circumstances to weigh.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 행정청이 확정판결의 취지에 따라 절차, 방법의 위법사유를 보완하여 다시 종전의 신청에 대한 거부처분을 할 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 그러한 처분도 행정소송법 제30조 제2항에 규정된 재처분에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [2] 방송위원회가 중계유선방송사업자에게 한 종합유선방송사업 승인거부처분이 심사의 기준시점을 경원자와 달리하여 평가한 것이 위법이라는 사유로 취소하는 확정판결의 취지에 따라 재처분 무렵을 기준으로 재심사한 결과에 따라 이루어진 재승인거부처분도 행정소송법 제30조 제2항에 규정된 재처분에 해당한다고 한 사례 [3] 방송법 제9조 제3항에 따라 중계유선방송사업자로 하여금 종합유선방송사업을 할 수 있도록 하는 방송위원회의 전환승인처분이 위법하게 되는 경우 [4] 방송위원회가 중계유선방송사업자에게 한 종합유선방송사업으로의 전환승인처분이 재량권의 일탈·남용이 아니라고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the administrative agency may, following the purport of a final and conclusive judgment, remedy the grounds for illegality in the procedure and method and again render a refusal disposition on the original application (affirmative), and whether such disposition also constitutes a re-disposition as provided in Article 30, paragraph (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act (affirmative) [2] A case in which it was held that a further refusal disposition, made following the purport of a final and conclusive judgment which cancelled a refusal disposition rendered by the Broadcasting Commission to a relay cable broadcasting operator concerning the approval of a comprehensive cable broadcasting business on the ground that it was unlawful in that the evaluation was made with a reference point of examination different from that of a competitor, also constitutes a re-disposition as provided in Article 30, paragraph (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, on the basis of the results of re-examination conducted with the time of the re-disposition as the reference point [3] Where the conversion approval disposition of the Broadcasting Commission, which enables a relay cable broadcasting operator to conduct a comprehensive cable broadcasting business pursuant to Article 9 (3) of the Broadcasting Act, becomes unlawful [4] A case in which it was held that the conversion approval disposition of the Broadcasting Commission to a relay cable broadcasting operator was not a deviation from or abuse of discretion
Summary of the holding
[1] 행정소송법 제30조 제2항의 규정에 의하면 행정청의 거부처분을 취소하는 판결이 확정된 경우에는 그 처분을 행한 행정청이 판결의 취지에 따라 이전의 신청에 대하여 재처분할 의무가 있다고 할 것이나, 그 취소사유가 행정처분의 절차, 방법의 위법으로 인한 것이라면 그 처분 행정청은 그 확정판결의 취지에 따라 그 위법사유를 보완하여 다시 종전의 신청에 대한 거부처분을 할 수 있고, 그러한 처분도 위 조항에 규정된 재처분에 해당한다. [2] 방송위원회가 중계유선방송사업자에게 한 종합유선방송사업 승인거부처분이 심사의 기준시점을 경원자와 달리하여 평가한 것이 위법이라는 사유로 취소하는 확정판결의 취지에 따라 재처분 무렵을 기준으로 재심사한 결과에 따라 이루어진 재승인거부처분도 행정소송법 제30조 제2항에 규정된 재처분에 해당한다고 한 사례. [3] 방송법 제9조 제3항에 의한 전환승인은 중계유선방송사업자로 하여금 종합유선방송사업을 할 수 있도록 하는 행정행위이고, 방송위원회는 전문성 및 사회 각 분야의 대표성을 갖춘 9인의 방송위원으로 구성되어 방송에 관한 전반적인 사항을 심의·의결하는 합의제 행정기관이라는 점 및 방송법의 관계 규정에 비추어 보면, 방송위원회는 시청자의 권익보호와 민주적 여론형성 및 국민문화의 향상을 도모하고 방송의 발전과 공공복리의 증진에 이바지한다는 법의 목적 및 위와 같은 전환승인제도를 둔 취지를 고려하여 시청자의 의견청취 및 그 의견의 반영 여부 공표 등의 절차를 거쳐 전환승인의 구체적인 심사기준 및 방법 등을 정할 수 있다고 할 것이고, 이렇게 정해진 기준 및 방법에 따라 심사가 이루어졌음에도 불구하고 그 심사결과에 따른 처분이 위법하다고 하기 위해서는 그 기준 자체가 법령의 규정에 위반되거나 방송법의 목적 및 전환승인제도의 취지에 비추어 객관적으로 합리성 또는 타당성을 현저히 결여한 것이라거나, 그 심사기준에 설정된 각 항목별 평가가 타당성 없이 이루어졌다는 등의 사정이 있어야 한다. [4] 방송위원회가 중계유선방송사업자에게 한 종합유선방송사업으로의 전환승인처분이 재량권의 일탈·남용이 아니라고 한 사례
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 행정소송법 제30조 제2항 / [2] 방송법 제9조 제3항, 행정소송법 제30조 제2항 / [3] 방송법 제9조 제3항 / [4] 방송법 제9조 제3항, 행정소송법 제27조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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