[2] Legal nature of the registration of newspaper by the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the Act on Promotion of Newspapers, etc. (=administrative disposition)

[3] Whether the status of newspaper enterpriser recognized by the registration under the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, etc. is a direct and specific interest separate from the “right to use a specific name” which is a judicial right (affirmative)

[4] In a case where a civil dispute arises between a pre-registered newspaper enterpriser and a new newspaper enterpriser regarding permission for the use of the name, whether the registration authority may revoke and withdraw the registration of a new newspaper enterpriser ex officio (negative), and whether the legal status of the promotion of newspaper, etc. exists before the judgment of the court (affirmative)

[5] The case holding that in case where Eul corporation, the registration authority of which was permitted to use the name of "Weak" from Gap corporation, and registered the name, etc. of the newspaper to the Do Governor who was issued the Jeju newsletter pursuant to the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc., and Eul corporation received the report of succession to the status of business operators and the application for modification of the registered matters of publisher, editor, etc. as a result of Gap corporation's business takeover, and filed a lawsuit seeking the correction of registration, defect of succession to status, acceptance of report of succession to status of business operators, and confirmation or revocation of the registration of change of newspaper business, the above disposition is deemed as legal interest in Eul corporation to seek nullification or revocation since Eul corporation's legal status as to the promotion

[2] A person who intends to publish a newspaper shall register the name of the newspaper (hereinafter referred to as “title”) with the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the seat of the principal office (hereinafter “registration authority”), and a fine for negligence not exceeding 20 million won is imposed on a person who publishes a newspaper without registration (Articles 9(1) and 39(1)1 of the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc.). Accordingly, the registration of a newspaper conducted by the registration authority constitutes an administrative disposition that enables the lawful publication of a newspaper.

[3] In full view of the legal nature of the registration of a newspaper under the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc. (hereinafter “Examination Act”), the content and purport of the prohibition of double registration of the same name, etc., the registration of a newspaper does not merely include the registration of a name, etc. and the publication of such name in a public book to the general public, but also allow the publication of a newspaper under a specific name registered with a newspaper business operator. As such, the status of a newspaper business operator recognized under the Examination Act is distinguishable from the “right to use

[4] An existing newspaper enterpriser (hereinafter “existing enterpriser”) may assert invalidation, cancellation, or termination of an agreement with a new newspaper enterpriser (hereinafter “new enterpriser”) on permission for use of a name, or dispute between a new enterpriser and a new enterpriser by asserting the termination of a permitted period of time and claiming that the new enterpriser lawfully registered the same name. The Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc. (hereinafter “Examination Act”) does not directly stipulate the validity of double registration or the administrative measures taken by the new enterpriser who has double registration of the same name when two or more newspaper enterprisers intend to examine.

However, in the event a civil dispute arises between an existing business entity and a new business entity in connection with permission for the use of a name, the registration authority cannot cancel or withdraw the registration of a new business entity ex officio on the ground of the dispute, and the court's decision on the dispute can only take administrative measures such as cancellation of registration or modification of registration accordingly, and the status of a new business entity under the Act on the Examination of a New Business entity shall continue until the

[5] In a case where Eul corporation, which registered the name, etc. of the newspaper with the registration authority under the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, etc. (hereinafter “Examination Act”), and issued the weekly newspaper with the permission of the use of the name of the newspaper from Gap corporation, and Eul corporation, which received the report of succession to the status of Eul corporation, and applied for the change of the registered matters of the issuer, editor, etc., due to Gap corporation's acquisition of its business, the Do Governor filed a lawsuit seeking defect in the registration of change, acceptance of the report of succession to status of business operators, and confirmation or revocation of the registration of the newspaper business, the court held that the status of newspaper company is distinguishable from the "right to use a specific name under private law" in direct and specific interests protected by the newspaper Act, and even if a civil dispute over the permission of the use of the newspaper name between Eul and Eul corporation exists, the above disposition becomes unstable in the status of the newspaper law that allows Eul corporation to issue the newspaper under the name of "We week," and thus, it is acknowledged that the legal interest to seek nullification or revocation is extinguished.

1. Issues;

The Plaintiff obtained permission for the use of the name of the Jeju Assistants Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “ Jeju Assistants”) from the Jeju Assistants Co., Ltd., and registered the name, etc. of the newspaper to the Defendant, who is the registration authority, in accordance with the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Examination Act”). After that, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) received the Jeju Assistants’ business, the Plaintiff’s report of succession to the status of the business entity was defective, and the Defendant accepted the report and revised the registration regarding the publisher, editor, etc. of the Jeju Assistants. The issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff has legal interest in receiving the above report of succession

2. Acceptance of reports on succession to the status of existing newspaper enterprisers, and litigation for nullification and cancellation of registration of change of newspaper business, standing to sue of new newspaper enterprisers;

A. In a lawsuit seeking revocation of an administrative disposition, the standing to sue is determined depending on whether there is a legal interest to seek revocation thereof, not whether it is the other party to the pertinent disposition. The legal interest here refers to a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the pertinent disposition, and does not include cases where it is an indirect or indirect factual or economic interest (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du8565, Sept. 28, 2001, etc.).

B. A person who intends to publish a newspaper shall register the name of the newspaper (the term “title”) with the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the seat of the principal office (hereinafter “registration authority”), and a fine for negligence not exceeding 20 million won is imposed on a person who publishes a newspaper without registration (Articles 9(1) and 39(1)1 of the Newspapers Act). Accordingly, the registration of a newspaper conducted by the registration authority constitutes an administrative disposition that enables the lawful publication of a newspaper.

Article 9(5) of the Newspapers Act provides, “No newspaper with the same name as that of a newspaper already registered shall be registered: Provided, That this shall not apply where the relevant business entity permits the use of the name of the newspaper.” In cases where the business entity of a newspaper already registered (hereinafter referred to as “existing business entity”) grants permission for the use of the name of the newspaper, a new newspaper business entity (hereinafter referred to as “new business entity”) is allowed to register the same name and issue an newspaper. Therefore, a newspaper using a specific name may be issued only by one business entity, as well as the freedom of the press of the business entity who has completed a registration of a specific name, as well as the freedom of the press of the business entity who has completed a registration of a newspaper, and at the same time, a general readers’s mistake and confusion is prevented. Where an existing business entity permits the use of the name of a newspaper to a new business entity and the registration authority registers a new business entity as a newspaper business entity, the existing business entity

In full view of the legal nature of newspaper registration under the Act, and the content and purport of the prohibition of double registration of the same name, the registration of newspaper does not merely include the registration of the name, etc. in the public ledger and the publication thereof to the general public, but also allow newspaper publication under a specific name registered with the newspaper business operator. As such, the status of newspaper business operator recognized by the Act on Newspapers is distinguishable from the “right to use a specific name,” which is a private right.

C. A situation may arise where an existing enterpriser and a new enterpriser intend to publish an examination in the same name as legally registered, by asserting the invalidity, cancellation, or termination of the “Agreement on Permission for Use of Name” entered into with a new enterpriser, or claiming the termination of the permitted period, and dispute over the same. As can be seen, the Newspapers Act does not directly provide for the effects of double registration or the administrative measures taken against a new enterpriser who has double registered the same name when two or more newspaper enterprisers intend to issue an examination.

However, in a case where civil disputes arise between the existing business entity and the new business entity regarding permission to use the name, the registration authority may not cancel or withdraw the registration of the new business entity ex officio on the ground of the civil dispute, and may take administrative measures, such as cancellation of registration or modification of registration, by passing the court's decision on the dispute, and the status of the new business entity under the Act on the Examination of the New Business Entities shall continue until the court's decision is made.

(1) The newspaper law clearly separates the grounds for the registration authority to order the suspension of publication (Article 22(1) and (2)), the grounds for filing a petition with the court for adjudication on the cancellation of a newspaper registration (Article 22(2)) and the grounds for the revocation of a newspaper ex officio (Article 23). The dual registration of the same name does not fall under the above grounds.

(2) The Act on the Registration, etc. of Periodicals, enacted by Act No. 3979 of Nov. 28, 1987, prohibits the cancellation of the registration of newspapers by the registration authorities in principle and exceptionally permits the cancellation of the registration and the cancellation of the registration ex officio by the court judgment (Article 3979 of the Act on the Registration, etc. of Periodicals, which was enacted on Nov. 28, 1987, was completely prohibited by the registration authorities by abolish the system of the cancellation of registration ex officio by the Minister of Culture and Sports and introducing the system of the application for the adjudication on the cancellation of registration, but introduced the exceptional system of the cancellation of registration by amending Act No. 5145 of Dec. 30, 1995, and such legislative attitude also leads to the current newspaper law). The Act on the Registration, etc. of Periodicals, which was enacted on Dec. 30, 1995, applies to the order of the registration authorities to suspend the issuance of newspapers,

(3) Generally, a disposition agency that has performed an administrative act may withdraw the effect of a change in circumstances that become unnecessary to continue the original disposition or when a need for important public interest arises (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du41190, Mar. 15, 2017). However, in light of the legislative intent of the aforementioned Act, such withdrawal is prohibited in the area of the newspaper Act in light of the legislative intent of the newspaper Act. Although the newspaper Act does not explicitly provide for grounds, allowing the registration authority to ex officio revoke the newspaper registration on the sole ground of change in circumstances or need for public interest to be abused as a permit system for media prohibited under Article 21(2) of the Constitution.

(4) In the event of dispute regarding permission for the use of newspaper name, the status of the new enterpriser under the Act on the Examination of the new enterpriser cannot be deemed to be immediately terminated solely on the sole basis of the existing enterpriser’s unilateral assertion. If such opinion is found to be groundless, it is difficult to recover the fatal impact on the new enterpriser’s newspaper business. The existing enterpriser may recover the right to issue a newspaper under its original name by filing a provisional disposition demanding the prohibition of the use of newspaper name against the new enterpriser, or by filing a principal suit against the new enterpriser. As such, it is unreasonable even if the status of the new enterpriser is continuously maintained until the court rendered a decision, it is unreasonable for the registration authority to intervene in civil disputes between the existing enterpriser and the new enterpriser, and to make the parties resolve the dispute through the court’s decision. This accords with the legislative intent of the Act on the Examination

3. Factual basis

The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record of the instant case reveal the following facts.

A. Registration of the Plaintiff’s establishment and newspaper

(1) The Jeju Youthian published a newspaper under the name of " Jeju Youth" (registration number 1 omitted) and was placed in the management crisis due to financial difficulties around December 2012. On December 7, 2012, Nonparty 1, the representative director, who was entrusted the management of the Jeju Youth on the management of the Jeju Youth on December 7, 2012, and multiple executives and employees constituted "the Jeju Youth Emergency Countermeasures Committee" to continue to issue the Jeju Youth by the end of the normalization of the company.

(2) On December 9, 2012, Nonparty 1 entered into a contract to transfer the trademark rights of the Jeju Internet News, ② the Jeju Internet News, and ③ the contract to transfer the rights of the Jeju Internet News (However, regarding the Jeju Internet News and the Internet News, the time limit for transfer was set by the time limit for dissolution of the Emergency News Committee). On December 10, 2012, Nonparty 1 submitted the resignation of the representative director of the Jeju Internet News on the same day, but Nonparty 1 failed to accept it in a regular manner because the said resignation was not reported to the board of directors of the Jeju Internet News.

(3) On February 5, 2013, the Jeju Youth Council ratified a contract for the transfer of rights, including trademark rights, concluded between Nonparty 1 and the Emergency Countermeasure Committee.

(4) On January 24, 2013, 7 co-representatives of non-party 2 and non-party 2 and non-party 2 acquired three trademark rights (hereinafter “each of the trademark rights of this case”) from the Jeju reporter to make a transfer registration of rights. On April 11, 2013, the Jeju reporter again acquired each of the above trademark rights from non-party 2, etc. to make a transfer registration of rights.

(5) At the time, Nonparty 3, who was a director of the Jeju Youth Group, established the Plaintiff on August 27, 2013 at the request of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee. Around that time, the majority of executives and employees who were employed in the Jeju Youth Group, transferred their positions to the Plaintiff in the form of new employment. Major facilities for publishing newspapers, such as newspaper company and leap-electrics held by the Jeju Youth Group were disposed of by the Korea Asset Management Corporation on July 2013, and the head of the Jeju District Tax Office abolished the Jeju Youth on October 23, 2013.

(6) On September 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to enter into an exclusive license agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the name, etc. of the Jeju Youth and each of the instant trademark rights as well as the name, etc. of the Jeju Youth, with a contract deposit of KRW 1 million, monthly user fee of KRW 500,000,000, and the contract term from September 27, 2013 to the time of sale by public auction, etc. of each of the instant trademark rights, and registered the exclusive license of each of the instant trademark rights on December 9, 2013.

(7) On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff registered (registration No. 2 omitted) pursuant to the Newspaper Act as “the Jeju Book.” At this time, the Plaintiff submitted a “written confirmation of permission for registration of the same title” under the name of the Jeju Book, which is from September 27, 2013 to the expiration date of the instant contract, from September 27, 2013. After that, the Plaintiff published a general daily newspaper under the name of “the Jeju Book.”

B. Sale and invalidation of each trademark right of this case

(1) In the sale procedure conducted under Jeju District Court 2013TTT 4178 by filing an application for compulsory execution against each of the trademark rights of this case, Nonparty 4, who was the birth of Nonparty 1, the representative director of the Jeju District Court, purchased each of the trademark rights of this case in KRW 900 million on December 23, 2014, and made a transfer registration of rights on January 19, 2015. On July 10, 2015, the exclusive license registered in the name of the Plaintiff was cancelled. The intervenor transferred the trademark rights of this case from Nonparty 4 on August 6, 2015 to transfer the right.

(2) On August 1, 2014, the Jeju newspaper company filed a petition against the Jeju newspaper company for a trial ruling on invalidation of registration regarding the " Jeju newspaper" among the trademark rights of this case, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling on invalidation of registration on August 1, 2014. While the Jeju newspaper sought the revocation of the above trial ruling, the Patent Court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim for revocation of the said trial ruling on January 16, 2015, the said judgment became final and conclusive. The Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial ruling on invalidation of registration against the Intervenor on August 28, 2015 relating to the " Jeju newspaper" and the " Jeju newspaper" among each trademark rights of this case, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling on invalidation of registration on June 16, 2016. Although the Intervenor sought revocation of the said trial ruling, the said request for revocation of the trial ruling was concluded as a rejection order.

(c) Disputes over the conclusion of a contract for transfer or acquisition by transfer between the Jeju reporter and the intervenor;

(1) The Intervenor was established on August 4, 201 and engaged in various types of sales business, etc. of recycled products under the trade name, “SBK,” but on December 23, 2014, the Intervenor changed the purpose of business by adding a new newspaper publishing business and broadcasting business, etc. on behalf of the existing business, and changed the trade name as at the present date. The Intervenor registered pursuant to the Newspapers Act with the “New Week” on July 29, 2015 (registration number 3 omitted).

(2) On August 17, 2015, Nonparty 4, as the representative director of the Intervenor, concluded a transfer/acquisition agreement with Nonparty 1, who was under detention of the Intervenor, with the content that he/she would not accept the obligation of the Jeju news company when he/she takes over, without compensation, all businesses, such as publication of newspapers, publication of newspapers, sale and advertisement, rights to sports/cultural business, copyright of the newspapers already issued, Internet news, domain name, website operation, etc. (hereinafter “instant transfer/acquisition agreement”).

(3) On September 8, 2015, the Intervenor submitted a “written consent for the use of title” prepared in the name of the representative director of the Jeju Youthian, and registered the name of the newspaper to be changed from the “New Youth” to the “ Jeju Youth” (registration number 3 omitted), and issued the newspaper as “ Jeju Youth” from November 16, 2015.

On November 2, 2015, the Jeju reporter sent a letter to the Defendant requesting the revocation of registration, suspension of issuance, etc. due to the Plaintiff’s use of the Plaintiff’s name of “ Jeju Newsletter”. On November 9, 2015, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The period during which the Plaintiff is entitled to use the Jeju Newsletter name is until December 23, 2014, each of the instant trademark rights was sold to Nonparty 4, and thus, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to suspend the use of the Jeju Newsletter name, and if he/she fails to comply therewith, he/she shall have to take measures, such as cancellation of registration, under the Newspapers Act.”

(4) The Intervenor filed an application for a provisional disposition prohibiting infringement of trademark rights against the Plaintiff as Jeju District Court No. 2015Kahap286, and the above court rendered a provisional disposition prohibiting the publication and distribution of newspapers, etc., using the name of “ Jeju Newsletter” on November 30, 2015. In the above provisional disposition case, the Intervenor asserted that the Intervenor succeeded to each of the trademark rights of this case from Nonparty 4 on the premise that Nonparty 4 acquired each of the trademark rights of this case lawfully and effectively, but the Plaintiff asserted that the registration of each of the trademark rights of this case was invalid, and thus, the Intervenor’s assertion that it is valid was without merit.

(5) Upon the commencement of a dispute with the Intervenor, the Plaintiff: (a) registered new facts under the Newspaper Act (registration number No. 4 omitted) using the name as “ Jeju Jeju Report” (registration number No. 4 omitted) around August 2015, in addition to the existing registration (registration number No. 2 omitted); and (b) on November 2015, the Plaintiff separately completed new registration (registration number No. 5 omitted) under the Newspaper Act (registration No. 5 omitted) using the name as “j Jeju Report.” After the provisional disposition decision, the Plaintiff issued a daily newspaper with the name as “j Jeju Report” without publishing a daily newspaper with the name as “j Jeju Report,” and then, published a daily newspaper with the name as “SP Report” under the former Newspaper Act (registration No. 2 omitted).

(6) On January 11, 2016, the Intervenor reported succession to the status of the Jeju Assistants to the Defendant pursuant to Article 14 of the Newspapers Act on the ground of the instant transfer/acquisition agreement, and applied for the change of registered matters, such as publisher, editor, etc. Accordingly, on January 20, 2016. The Defendant accepted the Intervenor’s above report on January 20, 2016 and registered the change thereof (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(7) The creditors of Jeju Island filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act against the Intervenor as Jeju District Court 2015Gahap11393, and the said court rendered a judgment that the transfer or acquisition contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act on November 17, 2016 (the foregoing judgment became final and conclusive as the withdrawal of an intervenor’s appeal).

(8) The Intervenor filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as Jeju District Court Decision 2016Gahap2222, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Intervenor’s claim on January 12, 2017 by accepting the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the instant transfer/acquisition agreement constitutes an abuse of the Plaintiff’s power of representation, and thus null and void as the representative director Nonparty 1’s abuse of the power of representation.” The Patent Court, which was the appellate court, appealed on June 21, 2018, as well as the instant transfer/acquisition agreement concluded with the Intervenor on May 1, 2017 (the instant transfer/acquisition agreement was almost the same as the instant transfer/acquisition agreement; hereinafter referred to as “second transfer/acquisition agreement”), which was concluded again with the Intervenor on May 1, 2017, all of the appeals filed by the Intervenor and the instant judgment dismissed the Intervenor’s claim extended with the Intervenor’s right of representation, and the instant judgment became null and void in each of the instant judgment.

4. Determination on the instant case

A. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen above 2., since the instant disposition results in unstable status under the newspaper law in which the Plaintiff may issue the newspaper under the name of the “ Jeju Island,” the Plaintiff may be legally entitled to seek confirmation of invalidity or revocation thereof. The reasons are as follows.

(1) On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff had the status under the newspaper law, which is legally entitled to publish an newspaper under the name of “ Jeju newspaper” by obtaining permission from the Jeju newspaper company for the use of the name of “ Jeju newspaper.”

(2) At the time of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor lost the human organization and physical facilities capable of publishing the newspaper under the name of the Jeju newsletter, and only the Plaintiff and the Intervenor were entitled to publish the newspaper. If the Defendant is registered as a newspaper enterpriser who is entitled to use one of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor as the name of the newspaper enterpriser, the other party becomes unstable in the status of the newspaper law under which one of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor may issue the newspaper under the name of the newspaper.

(3) Since both the instant transfer/acquisition agreement and the secondary transfer/acquisition agreement concluded between the Jeju reporter and the Intervenor are null and void, the Intervenor cannot be deemed to have lawfully acquired the right to publish the newspaper under the name of the Jeju reporter. The same applies to the case where the Defendant rendered the instant disposition.

(4) By purchasing each trademark right of this case in the sale procedure for compulsory execution on December 23, 2014, the issue may arise as to whether the contract of this case is terminated and the period during which the Plaintiff can use the name of “Attention” expires. However, the Plaintiff continued to publish a daily newspaper after December 23, 2014 in the daily newspaper under the name of “Attention” and suspended the use of the name of “Attention” in accordance with the provisional disposition order (No. 2015Kahap286, Jeju District Court Decision 2015) dated November 30, 2015. The Plaintiff raised by the Intervenor and the prohibition of trademark use in the instant case (No. 2016Gahap2222, Jeju District Court Decision 2016Gahap22222). The Plaintiff did not dispute the “the period during which Nonparty 4 purchased each trademark right of this case, and thus Nonparty 4 purchased it, or all of Nonparty 4 acquired each trademark right of this case from Nonparty 4, thereby becoming invalid.”

(5) On January 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) deemed the instant transfer and acquisition contract valid; and (b) deemed that the Intervenor succeeded to the status of the Jeju reporter, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to change the publisher, editor, printing, etc. of the registration of newspaper (registration No. 1 omitted). The Intervenor did not accept the Jeju reporter’s obligation through the instant transfer and acquisition contract; (c) thereby, the Intervenor was not obligated to permit the use of the Plaintiff’s name until the court rendered a decision as to whether the instant contract was lawfully terminated.

At the time of the disposition by the Defendant, the intervenor was holding (registration number 1 omitted) registration of the newspaper by taking over the Jeju newspaper business of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was granted permission for use of the name from the Jeju journal who completed the registration of the newspaper (registration number 1 omitted) and completed registration (registration number 2 omitted) under the Newspaper Act. The Defendant’s disposition of this case acknowledged that the intervenor and the Plaintiff were in a position to use the name of the “ Jeju newsletter” in the situation of conflict as above, and eventually, it has the meaning of denying the status of the newspaper law that allows the Plaintiff to issue the newspaper under the name of the Plaintiff’s “ Jeju newsletter.” Accordingly, if the Plaintiff did not bear the risk of imposing an administrative fine under Article 39(1)1 of the Newspapers Act, the Plaintiff was at a disadvantage that it is difficult to issue the newspaper under the name of “ Jeju newsletter”

B. On the following grounds, the lower court determined that there was no legal interest in seeking the confirmation or revocation of the instant disposition against the Plaintiff. ① The Jeju Youth withdrawn the Plaintiff’s consent to the use of the title of the “ Jeju Youth” against the Plaintiff, and so long as the Plaintiff lost the Plaintiff’s right to use the title of the “ Jeju Youth”, the Plaintiff’s registration of the examination is bound to be revoked as a matter of course, and there is no legal interest in seeking the confirmation or revocation of the instant disposition. ② The instant disposition is merely an acceptance of the succession to the status of the Plaintiff and the modification of the registered matters under the instant transfer or acquisition agreement between the Jeju Youth and the Intervenor, and does not constitute a disposition directly affecting the existence of the Jeju Youth. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff is a shareholder or creditor of

C. The part of the court below's decision to the same effect is acceptable, as there is no legal interest in seeking nullification or revocation of the instant disposition as the shareholder or creditor of the Jeju Youth company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu3630, Jun. 28, 1996; 97Nu1006, Jul. 23, 199); and

However, as seen above 2. As the status of newspaper enterpriser is the direct and specific interest protected by the newspaper law and is distinguishable from the “right to use a specific name” under the private law, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the status of newspaper enterpriser who completed registration under the newspaper law and the standing to sue on the premise that the status of newspaper enterpriser is naturally extinguished if he/she loses his/her private right in the part ①.

5. Whether the Plaintiff’s motion to intervene in the case is legitimate

In light of the relevant legal principles and the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the requirements for participation in the subsidy, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the applicant is the shareholder of the Jeju Assistant, and that the applicant for participation in the subsidy is the creditor of the Jeju Assistant, but his/her interest is not a legal interest to permit participation, and is merely an actual, economic, or emotional interest.

6. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s appeal is with merit, and the part against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiff’s appeal by the Plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor are assessed against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)