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

A. Nonparty E filed an application with the Defendant for the establishment of mining rights for cokia (tin) extraction on July 27, 2005 with respect to E, E, E, E, E, E, E, and E, respectively.

B. As a result of the analysis of minerals extracted from the above application area, the Defendant issued a disposition of denying the establishment of mining rights against Nogeodo land register B and E superior land register C on May 19, 201, and rendered a disposition of denying the establishment of mining rights against Nogeodo land register on May 20, 201 (hereinafter “each of the above dispositions”). On May 30, 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection against each of the instant dispositions with the Minister of Knowledge Economy on July 21, 201 upon delegation of the authority to file an objection, etc. against E from May 30, 201, but the Minister of Knowledge Economy rejected it on or around April 18, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 5 and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

1) The plaintiff who is not the other party to the disposition of refusal of this case has no legal interest in seeking the revocation of each disposition of this case.

2) Since the Plaintiff did not raise an objection against each of the dispositions of this case in its own name, it is not necessary to determine whether to comply with the filing period based on the service date of the written adjudication. Since the lawsuit of this case was filed 90 days after the Plaintiff became aware of each disposition of this case, the filing period was imposed.

B. Determination

First of all, the defendant's first argument is examined, and even if a third party is not the direct counter party of the administrative disposition, if the interests protected by law are infringed by the administrative disposition, it shall be entitled to a judgment of the propriety of the administrative disposition by filing a revocation lawsuit. However, the legally protected interests in this context refer to the direct and specific interests protected by the law based on the relevant administrative disposition, and the case where the third party has an indirect or factual and economic interest in relation to the pertinent administrative disposition is not included (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4450, Oct. 10, 25, 2002). This case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case is

Therefore, the instant lawsuit was filed by a person who has no standing to sue, and is unlawful without having to consider the remaining arguments of the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Magyeong-Gyeong