Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Changing a public-law party claim into a civil claim
Supreme Court, June 29, 2023, 2022Du44262 (judgment)
Case name: 교부청산금일부부존재확인의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the basis of the claim does not change, may a claim brought as a public-law party lawsuit under the Administrative Litigation Act be changed into a claim pursued as a civil suit?
Holding
It may. Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act applies the Civil Procedure Act to administrative litigation, so unless the nature of the litigation makes that inappropriate, a public-law party claim may be changed under Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act so long as the basis of the claim does not change. Both claims here rested on the same premise, that the liquidation money obligation under Article 41 of the Urban Development Act was KRW 3,534,050,553, so the basis was identical and the application of 6 April 2022 to change the claim had to be allowed.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 공법상 당사자소송에 대하여도 청구의 기초가 바뀌지 아니하는 한도 안에서 민사소송으로 소 변경이 가능하다고 해석하는 것이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, it is reasonable to interpret that, with respect to an action between parties under public law as well, changing the action to a civil action is possible to the extent that the basic grounds of the claim are not altered.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
공법상 당사자소송의 경우도 민사소송법 제262조에 따라 청구의 기초가 바뀌지 아니하는 한도 안에서 변론을 종결할 때까지 청구의 취지를 변경할 수 있다
Unofficial English translation
In the case of an action between parties under public law as well, pursuant to Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act, the content of the claim may be amended to the extent that the basic grounds of the claim are not altered, until the close of oral argument
Factors
- 행정소송법 제8조 제2항은 행정소송에 관하여 민사소송법을 준용하도록 하고 있으므로
- 민사소송에서 항고소송으로의 소 변경이 허용되는 이상
- 공법상 당사자소송의 대상과 민사소송의 대상을 구분하기가 쉽지 않고
- 당사자의 권리 구제나 소송경제의 측면에서도 바람직하지 않다
Unofficial English translation
• Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides for the mutatis mutandis application of the Civil Procedure Act to administrative litigation, so
• since a change of the action from civil action to appeal litigation is permitted
• it is not easy to distinguish between the subject matter of an action between parties under public law and the subject matter of a civil action, and
• it is also undesirable from the perspective of relief of the parties' rights and procedural economy
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2020. 1. 16. 선고 2019다264700 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2019Da264700 decided January 16, 2020
Decisions referred to
대법원 2020. 1. 16. 선고 2019다264700 판결(공2020상, 420)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
For which features of a public-law party lawsuit is the nature of the litigation deemed to make the Civil Procedure Act inappropriate to apply?
A later decision stating when civil procedure is inappropriate for a public-law party lawsuit would give content to the exception the Court left open. An amendment to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act or Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act also calls for a fresh reading, as does the remand judgment of the Daegu High Court on the overpaid liquidation money.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
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 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “Follows earlier decisions” vs Independent “States a new standard”
The primary reading presents the holding as following existing precedent, while the independent reading presents it as a new standard for public-law party actions, so the precedent relationship is read differently.
이처럼 민사소송에서 항고소송으로의 소 변경이 허용되는 이상, 공법상 당사자소송과 민사소송이 서로 다른 소송절차에 해당한다는 이유만으로 청구기초의 동일성이 없다고 해석하여 양자 간의 소 변경을 허용하지 않을 이유가 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: The Daegu High Court, in its judgment of 20 May 2022 (2021Nu5025), held that the plaintiff's original claim, that no liquidation money obligation exceeding KRW 3,534,050,553 existed under Article 41 of the Urban Development Act, was a public-law party lawsuit, whereas the new claim for return of the overpaid KRW 423,777,047 as unjust enrichment had to be litigated through civil procedure. It therefore treated the plaintiff's application of 6 April 2022 to change the claim as a change of the basis of claim, which Article 21(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act does not permit.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that both claims were premised on the same assertion, that the liquidation money obligation was KRW 3,534,050,553, so the basis of the claim was identical and the amendment application had to be allowed. The court below had misread the law on the identity of the basis of claim, an error that affected the judgment. It found no error in the first ground of appeal, which had attacked the characterisation of the claims themselves, and reversed and remanded the whole judgment.
Distinguishing conditions
- A proposed change that alters the premise on which the claim rests, so that the basis of the claim changes.
- A change of claim that turns the case into an administrative revocation suit, which is governed by Article 42 and Article 21 of the Administrative Litigation Act.
- A change following an alteration of the disposition, which is governed by Article 44(1) and Article 22 of the Administrative Litigation Act.
Record verification notes
Set the original claim against the proposed claim and identify the single factual and legal premise they share, since the decision turns on that identity and on no other comparison. Then consider whether the nature of the administrative litigation makes the Civil Procedure Act's rules inappropriate, the exception the Court left at large. Also note the direction of the change: the line of authority the Court followed concerns a case wrongly filed as a civil suit that had to become an administrative revocation suit, and that route is not this one.
From the official text
Points at issue
청구의 기초가 바뀌지 않는 경우, 공법상 당사자소송에서 민사소송으로 소 변경이 허용되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether an action between parties under public law may be changed to a civil action where the basic grounds of the claim are not altered (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
공법상 당사자소송의 소 변경에 관하여 행정소송법은, 공법상 당사자소송을 항고소송으로 변경하는 경우(행정소송법 제42조, 제21조) 또는 처분변경으로 인하여 소를 변경하는 경우(행정소송법 제44조 제1항, 제22조)에 관하여만 규정하고 있을 뿐, 공법상 당사자소송을 민사소송으로 변경할 수 있는지에 관하여 명문의 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 그러나 공법상 당사자소송에서 민사소송으로의 소 변경이 금지된다고 볼 수 없다. 이유는 다음과 같다. ① 행정소송법 제8조 제2항은 행정소송에 관하여 민사소송법을 준용하도록 하고 있으므로, 행정소송의 성질에 비추어 적절하지 않다고 인정되는 경우가 아닌 이상 공법상 당사자소송의 경우도 민사소송법 제262조에 따라 청구의 기초가 바뀌지 아니하는 한도 안에서 변론을 종결할 때까지 청구의 취지를 변경할 수 있다. ② 한편 대법원은 여러 차례에 걸쳐 행정소송법상 항고소송으로 제기해야 할 사건을 민사소송으로 잘못 제기한 경우 수소법원으로서는 원고로 하여금 항고소송으로 소 변경을 하도록 석명권을 행사하여 행정소송법이 정하는 절차에 따라 심리·판단해야 한다고 판시해 왔다. 이처럼 민사소송에서 항고소송으로의 소 변경이 허용되는 이상, 공법상 당사자소송과 민사소송이 서로 다른 소송절차에 해당한다는 이유만으로 청구기초의 동일성이 없다고 해석하여 양자 간의 소 변경을 허용하지 않을 이유가 없다. ③ 일반 국민으로서는 공법상 당사자소송의 대상과 민사소송의 대상을 구분하기가 쉽지 않고 소송 진행 도중의 사정변경 등으로 인해 공법상 당사자소송으로 제기된 소를 민사소송으로 변경할 필요가 발생하는 경우도 있다. 소 변경 필요성이 인정됨에도, 단지 소 변경에 따라 소송절차가 달라진다는 이유만으로 이미 제기한 소를 취하하고 새로 민사상의 소를 제기하도록 하는 것은 당사자의 권리 구제나 소송경제의 측면에서도 바람직하지 않다. 따라서 공법상 당사자소송에 대하여도 청구의 기초가 바뀌지 아니하는 한도 안에서 민사소송으로 소 변경이 가능하다고 해석하는 것이 타당하다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
Provisions referred to
행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 제21조, 제22조, 제42조, 제44조 제1항, 민사소송법 제262조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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