[2] Whether a specific individual's reputation or reputation, which may be infringed upon due to the designated disposition of the designated cultural heritage under the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act, constitutes a legal interest in seeking revocation of the designated disposition (negative)

[3] Whether the right to request a specific individual to cancel or cancel the designation of the designated cultural heritage under the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act is recognized on the ground that the specific individual suffers or is likely to suffer any disadvantage due to the designation of the designated cultural heritage (negative)

[2] Article 5(1) and (5) of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 5073 of Dec. 29, 195) and Article 11(1) of the former Ordinance on the Protection of Gyeongnam-do Cultural Heritage (amended by Act No. 5073 of Oct. 11, 199), the Do governor’s designation as the Do governor’s act of designating cultural heritage as the Do-designated cultural heritage for the purpose of promoting the cultural improvement of the people and contributing to the development of human culture by preserving and utilizing cultural heritage (Article 1 of the same Act). Since the Do governor designates cultural heritage within its jurisdiction as the Do-designated cultural heritage and not designated as the Do-designated cultural heritage, its legislative purpose or purpose is to protect the interests of local residents or citizens in enjoying cultural heritage, it is not construed as directly and specifically protecting interests in enjoying a certain individual’s enjoyment of cultural heritage, and thus, it does not constitute an act of protecting the reputation or reputation of an individual or person under the same Act.

[3] Article 15 (5) of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 5073, Dec. 29, 1995); Article 15 of the former Ordinance on the Protection of Gyeongnam-do Cultural Heritage (amended by Act No. 5073, Oct. 11, 1999) provides that the Do Governor shall cancel the designation after deliberation by the Committee when the Do-designated cultural heritage loses its value as cultural heritage or there are other special reasons, and does not separately provide for the grounds that the Do-designated cultural heritage loses its value as cultural heritage and the Do-designated cultural heritage may request the Do-designated cultural heritage to cancel or cancel the designation. Thus, the purport of the same Act and the same Ordinance that the Do-Do-designated cultural heritage protection Act and the same Ordinance do not grant the individual the right to file such an application to the Do-designated cultural heritage to the individual. Thus, even if an individual suffers or is likely to suffer disadvantage due to the designation of cultural heritage, the Do-designated cultural heritage can only request the cancellation of the designation.

Whether a standing to sue in a lawsuit seeking revocation of an administrative disposition is determined not depending on whether it is the other party to the pertinent disposition, but on whether there is a legal interest to seek revocation thereof. The legal interest here refers to cases where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the relevant disposition, and it does not include cases where there is no indirect or factual or economic interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5805, Sept. 1, 1992).

The court below acknowledged that one of the graves in the judgment of the court below in the Namnam-gun of March 11, 1996 had been moved to the non-party's cemetery, who is the non-party's clan, at the end of consideration, and that it is worth preserving its original form in academic terms because the pattern has become effective after consideration, and thus, it cannot be seen that the non-party's claim for the designation of a clan was unlawful in light of the law and regulations of this case and the law of this case, and since the non-party's claim for the cancellation of the designation of a clan under Article 55 (1) and (5) of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 5073, Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the non-party's claim for the designation of a clan under the name of "the non-party's grave owner" and Article 11 (1) of the former Ordinance on the Protection of Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance"), the non-party's claim for the designation of this case's interest.

Article 5(1) and (5) of the Act, and Article 11(1) of the Ordinance of the Republic of Korea’s Do-designated cultural heritage designation disposition is an act that designates cultural heritage within its jurisdiction as Do-designated cultural heritage for the purpose of promoting citizens’ cultural improvement and contributing to the development of human culture (Article 1 of the Act). As such, the legislative purpose or purpose of the designation is to protect the interests of local residents or citizens in enjoying general cultural heritage, and it is not to directly and specifically protect the interests of certain individuals in enjoying cultural heritage, but to protect the reputation or reputation of a specific individual that may be infringed upon by the above designation disposition. Thus, even if the reputation or reputation of a certain individual or a person was damaged by the above designation disposition, such reputation or reputation does not constitute a legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition, since it cannot be deemed directly and specifically protected by the statutes based on the designation disposition.

The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in seeking the revocation of the designation of this case, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Determination as to the lawsuit on the conjunctive claim of this case

On June 20, 1996, when the plaintiff clan submitted a petition to the defendant requesting the cancellation or cancellation of the designation of this case on June 20, 1996, the court below acknowledged that the defendant made a reply to the plaintiff on January 31, 1997 that the designation of this case is legitimate and that the cancellation or cancellation is not possible, and that the plaintiff clan's preliminary claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the above reply constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, the court below determined that the plaintiff clan's preliminary claim of this case should have the right to request the cancellation or cancellation of the designation of this case. The designation or cancellation of the Do-designated cultural heritage can only be decided by the Do governor, even after examining each provision of the law and municipal ordinances. Further, the plaintiff's preliminary claim for the cancellation or cancellation of the designation of this case cannot be viewed as the plaintiff's preliminary claim for the cancellation of the designation of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's reply cannot be viewed as unlawful.

Article 15 of the Ordinance which provides for matters concerning the cancellation of the designation of the Do-designated cultural heritage upon delegation of Article 5 (5) of the Act provides that the Do-designated cultural heritage shall cancel the designation through deliberation of the Committee when the Do-designated cultural heritage loses its value as cultural heritage or there are other special reasons. Since the Act and municipal ordinances do not provide for the grounds that the Do-designated cultural heritage may apply for the cancellation or cancellation of the designation to the Do-do-do-do-designated cultural heritage, it cannot be deemed that the individual has the right to file such application under the law and municipal ordinances, and the purport that the Act and municipal ordinances do not grant the right to file such application to the individual is to determine whether the Do-Do-designated cultural heritage falls under the grounds for cancellation objectively from the public interest point of view of the preservation of cultural heritage without being able to file an application with the Do-Do-do-designated cultural heritage. Thus, even if an individual

The judgment of the court below that the plaintiff clan does not have the right to request the revocation or cancellation of the designation of this case is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to request the revocation or cancellation of the designation of the Do-designated cultural heritage.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)