Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s revocation of the registration of change in tourist accommodation business (family hotel) to the Intervenor joining the Defendant on July 4, 2011, and dismissed this part of the lawsuit.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. A third party, who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation on the ground that his/her environmental interest is infringed or is likely to be infringed upon by the administrative disposition, shall be acknowledged as standing to sue that his/her environmental interest is individually and specifically protected pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations: Provided, That in cases where the scope of the right of influence that is anticipated to be infringed on the environment due to the project, such as the act done by the administrative disposition in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations, it may be anticipated that the residents in the affected area will cause direct and serious environmental damage due to the relevant disposition. Such environmental benefits are directly and specifically protected by the individual residents, and barring special circumstances, standing to sue is recognized as being recognized as being infringement or infringement on the environmental interest, and the residents outside the affected area shall prove that the environmental interest has been infringed or is likely to be infringed on the environmental interest exceeding the permissible limit compared to the previous disposition, and shall be recognized as legally protected (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Du36316.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the lawsuit in this case seeking the cancellation of the registration for change of tourist accommodation business (family hotel business) to the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) on July 4, 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), the court below determined that the Plaintiff’s environmental benefits arising from the cancellation of the instant disposition constitute individual, direct and specific interests, and that the environmental benefits arising from the cancellation of the instant disposition constituted individual, direct and specific interests, and that the Plaintiff’s environmental benefits infringed on by the Plaintiff, a neighboring local resident, constitute the interests that are directly, directly and specifically protected by the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations, and in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the court below determined that the Plaintiff’s environmental benefits arising from the instant disposition constituted noise exceeding the permissible limit of admission due to previous convictions or are likely to suffer damage due to noise exceeding the permissible limit of admission.

3. However, such determination by the lower court is difficult to accept as it is. Article 16(5) of the Tourism Promotion Act and this Article, which is the legal basis for the instant disposition, and Article 171(2) of the former Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City (amended by Act No. 12406, Mar. 11, 2014); Articles 21(3) and 23(1)3(c) of the Ordinance on the Promotion of Tourism of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province as delegated by Article 171(2) of the former Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (amended by Act No. 12406, Mar. 1, 2014); and Article 21(3) and 23(1)3(c) of the Ordinance on the Promotion of Tourism of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (amended by Act No. 12406, Mar. 3, 2014) do not apply to facilities other than the instant decision.

Meanwhile, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) from around 2001 to around 850 meters of the straight line from the instant outdoor performance place; (b) on November 18, 201, the pertinent public officials visited the Plaintiff at the time when they were unable to visit the P (the distance between the Plaintiff’s place of residence and the instant resort) located in the city and 19:50 to 20:00; (c) found that the noise level of the instant outdoor performance place measured between 19:50 and 20: (d) was 41dB; (d) determined that the lower court’s determination that there was no possibility that the Plaintiff would suffer damages from the noise level exceeding 20:00,000 of the former Framework Act on Environmental Policy (wholly amended by Act No. 10893, Jul. 21, 201), Article 2 and [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 23967, Jul. 20, 20120).

Therefore, there is no applicable law or relevant law that protects the individual and specific environmental interests of the plaintiff, and it is difficult to see that the plaintiff is likely to be infringed or infringed on the living environment beyond the tolerance limit compared to his previous disposition due to the disposition in this case, but the court below judged that the plaintiff has standing to seek revocation of the disposition in this case. In this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to standing to sue or by inconsistent reasoning

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal. Since this case is sufficient to be directly tried by the Supreme Court, the cancellation part of the disposition of this case among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim In-young