‘중간적 행정결정’과 항고소송의 대상적격

Intermediate administrative decisions, by definition, are often made in the middle of adjudication, which involves numerous internal procedures. In this context, it is important to establish the proper standards to determine whether such intermediate decisions can establish the subject matter jurisdiction for administrative law litigations. To deal with this issue, first, merely seemingly administrative decisions should be excluded, which can be identified by the content and nature of the legal issues and claims involved. Next, it is necessary to categorize intermediate administrative decisions: (i) Type-1: decisions not subject to administrative law litigations as they are not publicly noticed by their nature; (ii) Type-2: decisions that will inevitably reach a final decision; (iii) Type-3: decisions that are prerequisites for other administrative actions. Type-2 decisions can be further specified: (1) decisions that trigger an administrative investigation (“Type 2-(1)”); (2) decisions that become the final decision in and of itself where only the final decision is publicly noticed (“Type 2-(2)”); (3) decisions that become an important premise or basis for the final disposition, but dose not form the final decision in and of itself (“Type 2-(3)”). These categorizations would help the courts apply the existing theories and judicial precedents of the subject matter jurisdiction and decide whether to allow any subject matter jurisdiction-related challenges against intermediate administrative decisions.