Binding effect of a revocation decision on a later disposition

1. 01Question

   Where an administrative appeal decision cancelled an earlier disposition, does a further disposition on grounds different from those held unlawful in that decision breach the binding effect under Article 37 of the Administrative Appeals Act, and how is it decided whether the grounds are the same or different?

2. 02Holding

   The binding effect of a revocation decision reaches only its order and the findings and judgments on the facts underlying it, that is, the specific grounds of illegality of the disposition. A further disposition may therefore rest on grounds other than those on which the earlier disposition was made, without breaching that effect; whether the grounds are the same or different turns on whether they share identity in the basic factual relationship with the grounds held unlawful in the decision. Here the grounds of the later refusal did not share such identity, so it did not breach the binding effect.

   Summary of the holding, verbatim

   재결의 기속력은 재결의 주문 및 그 전제가 된 요건사실의 인정과 판단, 즉 처분 등의 구체적 위법사유에 관한 판단에만 미친다고 할 것이고, 종전 처분이 재결에 의하여 취소되었다 하더라도 종전 처분시와는 다른 사유를 들어서 처분을 하는 것은 기속력에 저촉되지 않는다고 할 것이며, 여기에서 동일 사유인지 다른 사유인지는 종전 처분에 관하여 위법한 것으로 재결에서 판단된 사유와 기본적 사실관계에 있어 동일성이 인정되는 사유인지 여부에 따라 판단되어야 한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The binding force of a decision extends only to the operative part of the decision and the finding and determination of the requisite facts on which it is premised, that is, to the determination of the specific grounds of illegality of the disposition, etc.; and even where the prior disposition has been revoked by the decision, making a disposition on grounds different from those at the time of the prior disposition does not contravene the binding force; and here, whether the grounds are the same or different must be determined according to whether the grounds are recognized as identical in their basic facts with the grounds found unlawful in the decision with respect to the prior disposition.

3. 03Disposition

   Dismissed Stated in the decision

   상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.

4. 04Form of the test

   Elements stated Stated in the decision

   여기에서 동일 사유인지 다른 사유인지는 종전 처분에 관하여 위법한 것으로 재결에서 판단된 사유와 기본적 사실관계에 있어 동일성이 인정되는 사유인지 여부에 따라 판단되어야 한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   Here, whether the grounds are the same or different must be determined according to whether the grounds are recognized as identical in their basic facts with the grounds found unlawful in the decision with respect to the prior disposition.

5. 05Factors

   • 재결의 주문 및 그 전제가 된 요건사실의 인정과 판단, 즉 처분 등의 구체적 위법사유에 관한 판단에만 미친다고
   • 종전 처분시와는 다른 사유를 들어서 처분을 하는 것은 기속력에 저촉되지 않는다고
   • 여기에서 동일 사유인지 다른 사유인지는 종전 처분에 관하여 위법한 것으로 재결에서 판단된 사유와 기본적 사실관계에 있어 동일성이 인정되는 사유인지 여부에 따라 판단되어야 한다
   • 기본적 사실관계에 있어 동일성이 없으므로

   Unofficial English translation

   • extends only to the operative part of the decision and the finding and determination of the requisite facts on which it is premised, that is, to the determination of the specific grounds of illegality of the disposition, etc.

   • making a disposition on grounds different from those at the time of the prior disposition does not contravene the binding force

   • Here, whether the grounds are the same or different must be determined according to whether the grounds are recognized as identical in their basic facts with the grounds found unlawful in the decision with respect to the prior disposition

   • since there is no identity in the basic facts

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

   대법원 1998. 2. 27. 선고 96누13972 판결(공1998상, 919)

   Unofficial English translation

   Supreme Court Decision 96Nu13972 decided February 27, 1998 (Gong 1998 Sang, 919)

   Decisions referred to

   [1] 대법원 1998. 2. 27. 선고 96누13972 판결(공1998상, 919), 대법원 2001. 3. 23. 선고 99두5238 판결(공2001상, 1012), 대법원 2001. 9. 14. 선고 99두3324 판결(공2001하, 2273), 대법원 2003. 4. 25. 선고 2002두3201 판결(공2003상, 1337)

7. 07Burden of proof

   Not addressed Not in the decision

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   Where a later disposition rests partly on facts also present among those underlying the unlawful ground, at what point do the two grounds acquire identity in the basic factual relationship?

   A later Supreme Court decision refining the basic-factual-identity test under Article 37 of the Administrative Appeals Act would call for this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to that Article, or a record in which the refusal and the cancelled disposition rest on overlapping entrance road facts.

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.