2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. With respect to the instant lawsuit for which the Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties concerned seeks revocation of the decision of the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2004 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), the Defendant did not own the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff did not have any interest to seek revocation of the instant disposition, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. In light of the determination, an appeal suit may be filed by a person who has a legal interest in seeking revocation of a disposition, etc. (see Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act), and “legal interest” as referred to in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act refers to a direct and specific interest protected by an Act based on the relevant administrative disposition, and it does not include cases where a person has a factual or economic interest in relation to the relevant administrative disposition. However, even if a third party is not the direct party of an administrative disposition, if a legal interest is infringed upon by the relevant administrative disposition, he/she is entitled to file a revocation suit and obtain a decision of propriety thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19168, May 13, 2010), barring any special circumstance, a shareholder of a corporation has a de facto or indirect interest in an administrative disposition against a corporation, and thus, there is no standing to seek revocation of such disposition.

I would like to say.

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 12, No. 12, and No. 12 of this case, the real estate of this case is the ownership of Snobyam Co., Ltd. and the plaintiff is merely the shareholder of the above company. In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff has a de facto or indirect interest in the disposition of this case, and there is a legal interest in seeking its revocation.