예방접종 피해보상 신청 기각결정에 관한 검토 - 대법원 2019. 4. 3. 선고 2017두52764 판결을 중심으로 -

Since there was no objection provision to the decision of dismissal to request of preventive inoculation damage compensation, the target judgement stated that the objection procedure in Infectious Disease Control And Prevention Act is not an ‘administrative appeals’. In addition, it recognized the disposition of the decision of dismissal not to suffer any loss in the period of filing. It is meaningful in that it has overcome the limitations that the previous judgements did not recognize the properties of disposition about the decision of dismissal under the individual law. However, there is a limit in that it does not distinguish between the “administrative appeals” under the Administrative Appeals Act and Administrative Litigation Act. Considering that the distinguishment guarantees the plaintiff’s right to appeal for judgement and that it is in line with the purpose of legislation, there is a limit of using a single term in the target judgement. This needs to be supplemented by further amendments. In particular, distinguishing the term ‘administrative appeals’ has the advantage of preventing problems that may arise if the plaintiff does not know in advance whether an objection under the individual law constitutes a special administrative appeal. If the term ‘administrative appeals’ is not distinct, the plaintiff's right to appeal should be guaranteed in a different way, which in turn requires another external extension. The object judgment solved the problem by considering that the same decision to reject the application could be an object for revocation litigation from the standpoint of not distinguishing the term ‘administrative trial’. This is meaningful in that it has at least overcome the limitations of previous precedents.