Article 4 of the Administrative Proceedings Act providing that: “a judgment of the Administrative Court, insofar as the matter adjudged is concerned, shall have a binding effect upon all related government agencies,” is a statute designed to guarantee the people the constitutional right to demand through legal procedure final disposition by the court of their disputes over jural relations. Thus, where the judgment entered by the Administrative Court setting aside an administrative decision or action is one pointing out that the facts of the case are unclear and requiring the defendant government agency to take alternative action upon investigation into the facts and evidence, such agency must conduct an investigation into the facts and evidence either in pursuance of the substance of the judgment or ex officio.　If, based upon the facts found in consequence of such further investigation, the previous action is deemed to be free of error in law, the opinions given in support of the previous action may be sustained. If, however, the judgment entered by the Supreme Administrative Court setting aside an administrative decision or action is one that points out an error in law in such administrative action, the judgment must be taken as binding upon its supervisory government agency. The Supreme Administrative Court Precedent P.T. 35 (1971), holding that “if it is specifically pointed out in the reasoning of our judgment to nullify an administrative decision or action and that the defendant government agency must review the case, such administrative agency may of course conduct an investigation ex officio into the facts and evidence and make a decision based upon its review, and the result of such investigation, even if of the same opinion as the decision previously nullified, is not against the law,” is contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution in protecting the people’s right to sue, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the essence of our opinion given above, and must therefore be rendered invalid.

　　　 Article 16 of the Constitution providing that the people shall have the right to sue means that the people have the right to demand through legal procedure judicial remedy for final disposition of their disputes over jural relations. Thus, Article 4 of the Administrative Proceedings Act providing that: “a judgment of the Administrative Court, insofar as the matter adjudged is concerned, shall have a binding effect upon all related government agencies,” is a statute designed to guarantee the people the opportunity to obtain a final disposition of their right for which a remedy is sought pursuant to administrative proceedings. Accordingly, a judgment of the administrative court to nullify the decision made or the action taken by an administrative agency must be respected by the original agency, and if a new action is ordered to be taken by the original agency, it must be taken in accordance with the substance of the judgment in order to fully protect the plaintiff’s constitutional right or interest in seeking remedy through litigation. The Supreme Administrative Court held in its Precedent P.T. 35 (1971) that “if it is specifically pointed out in the reasoning of our judgment to nullify an administrative decision or action and that the defendant government agency must review the case, such administrative agency may of course conduct an investigation ex officio into the facts and evidence and make a decision based on its review, and the result of such review, even if of the same opinion as the decision previously nullified, is not against the law.” While it is not against law in the event where it is pointed out in such judgment that the facts of the case are not sufficiently clear and that the defendant administrative agency must take a new action upon investigation into the facts and evidence, and where, as a result of the re-investigation carried out ex office by the agency or in pursuance of the essence of the judgment, it is found by such agency that the previous action did not err in law and that the opinion of the previous decision nullified must be sustained, the supervisory agency must be bound by the legal opinion given in the administrative court judgment if it is pointed out in such judgment that the original administrative decision or action has erred in law. The Precedent quoted above is contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution in protecting the people’s right to sue, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the essence of our opinion given above, and must therefore be rendered invalid.