[2] The standards for determining standing to sue for the residents within the scope of the right to influence where the scope of the right to influence, which is anticipated to be affected by an administrative disposition, is stipulated in the relevant laws and regulations

[3] Legal nature of Article 5 subparag. 2 of the former Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 1999 - 147) notified by the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy pursuant to Article 8 subparag. 4 of the former Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 1999- 147), and whether the benefits of neighboring residents in the living environment related to the construction of factories that may cause environmental pollution are protected by the relevant

[4] The scope of the construction of a factory permitted under subparagraph 1 [Attachment 3] of Article 27-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act, which provides for the construction, etc. of a factory within a nature conservation zone (affirmative)

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the purport of Articles 19 and 23 of the Administrative Appeals Act and the purpose of the administrative appeals system, a request for administrative appeal is interpreted as a written act that does not require strict form. Thus, if a person whose right or interest has been infringed due to an illegal or unjust administrative disposition submits a document seeking cancellation or modification of such disposition, such a request for administrative appeal shall be considered as a request for administrative appeal under Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act regardless of the title and the institution which submitted the document. In general, the claimant has no professional legal knowledge, and the purpose of the document submitted is unclear. However, in such a case, the administrative agency shall interpret and process the document so that the person who submitted it can benefit as much as possible (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu16250 delivered on September 5, 195; 98Du2621 delivered on June 9, 200).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in the judgment of the court below, based on the following facts: the plaintiffs submitted the document demanding the revocation of the approval of this case to the defendant on May 21, 2003; thus, the plaintiffs were aware of the fact that there was the approval of this case; since the lawsuit of this case was filed after the lapse of 90 days thereafter, the defendant's principal safety defense, which is an illegal lawsuit with the lapse of the period of filing the lawsuit, was established; the above document is "request for cancellation of permission for the establishment of South Dongdong-dong Complex"; the title is "request for cancellation of permission for the establishment of a factory," the defendant's name, address, and signature is "the defendant's disposition authority and the claimant's name, address, and signature are stated, the contents of the request for adjudication, the purport and reason of the request for adjudication, and the date of notification and seal of the administrative agency that issued the disposition, etc., which are not stated in the above document, and rejected the above procedure of the defendant's appeal.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justified, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to administrative appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A third party, who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation on the ground that his environmental interest is infringed or is likely to be infringed on by the administrative disposition, shall be deemed to have standing to sue if his environmental interest is individually, directly, and specifically protected by the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations, i.e., legally protected interests, and there are concerns about infringement or infringement on the environmental interest. However, in a case where the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations stipulate the scope of the right to influence that the act or project is likely to be infringed on the environmental interest, the residents within the affected area may have a direct and significant environmental damage caused by the relevant disposition. Such environmental interest is presumed to have been infringed or threatened to be infringed on the environmental interest, unless there are special circumstances, for the direct and specific interests individually protected to the individual residents, and the affected area and the residents outside the affected area shall prove that the environmental interest has been infringed or threatened to be infringed on the environmental interest exceeding the tolerance limit compared to the previous disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du1636.

However, pursuant to Article 8 subparagraph 4 of the former Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 6842 of Dec. 30, 2002, "the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act"), which is the basis law of the approval disposition of this case, the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy shall determine and publicly announce matters concerning restrictions on factory location which may cause environmental pollution in consultation with the head of the relevant central administrative agency. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy of the Standards for Factory Location (No. 1999 - 147) of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy announced as a result, if the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy determines that the construction of a factory would seriously harm nearby residents or farmland, and other regions' lives and natural environment, the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu may restrict factory location, and as such, Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the above Standard Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du274, Sep. 26, 2003).

Furthermore, according to the facts established by the court below, the defendant's assistant participant's act of obtaining approval from the defendant is intended to use the automobile parts manufacturing factory, and to remove the existing factory building and its site, the registration of which was revoked due to the closure of business and the destruction of manufacturing facilities, and to construct a ready-mixed factory at this point. The plaintiffs living together on the ground of the land immediately adjacent to the above site, and in the case of a ready-mixed factory, the plaintiffs are living together with engaging in the business on the ground of the land immediately adjacent to the above site. Accordingly, in any case of a ready-mixed factory, it can be a factory highly likely to cause environmental pollution, such as noise, dust, vibration, and vibration caused by the operation of a factory and the traffic of ready-mixed vehicle due to noise, waste water, pollution of underground water, traffic congestion, etc., taking into account the fact that the plaintiffs' living benefits living in the area immediately adjacent to the site of the factory of this case might be infringed due to the construction of the factory of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' standing to seek revocation of the approval of this case.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below which rejected the defendant's defense on the plaintiff's standing to sue is just, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to standing to sue in administrative disposition revocation

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

According to Article 20(1) of the former Industrial Placement Act, a new factory with a factory construction area of at least 500 square meters (including apartment-type factories) shall not be allowed in a natural conservation area where the factory site of this case is located, and the same shall not apply to cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree as it is deemed inevitable to develop the national economy and to create a living environment for local residents, etc. In addition, subparagraph 1 [Attachment Table 3] of Article 27-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act No. 18039 of Jun. 30, 2003) lists specific cases where the new construction of a factory is allowed in a natural conservation area. Of that, [Attachment Table 3] 3.(c) Item (c) of [Attachment Table 3] provides that the building area and expansion of a new factory or factory construction area are less than 1,000 square meters, and (f) item (f) is limited to cases where an existing factory is newly established or newly established in the same area.

In full view of the above provisions, the above provision is not ordinarily applicable to developing a natural conservation area and constructing a new factory of the same size. Thus, if a new factory is identical to or can be established in the same area as an existing factory, if it is the same type of business as that of the existing factory, the purpose of the provision is to allow the new factory without the area limit within the same size as that of the existing factory, the meaning of the "type of business allowed to be newly established in the relevant area" under item (f) of the above item (f) is to be limited to the category of business allowed to be newly established in [Attachment Table 3] 3] which is listed in the above item (c) (in the case of the instant ready-mixed factory of this case, which is a building material business, only if the factory construction area is less than 1,00 square meters, the above provision of item (f) is not required to be installed in the same area as that of the existing factory, the above provision of item (f) should be interpreted to the same extent as that of the existing factory within the same size as that of the new factory.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise by narrowly interpreting the meaning of “type of business that is allowed to be newly established in the relevant area” under the above item (f) as a type of business that is allowed to be newly established by other provisions of the [Attachment Table 3] 3] 3, that the factory construction area of this case, which is not allowed to be newly established in the relevant area on the ground that the factory construction area exceeds 1,000 square meters as prescribed in the above item (c) [Attachment Table 3] 3]. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of a factory that is allowed to be newly established under item (f) above, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)