2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Jeju 4 and 3 Incident Act, the defendant received a report of the victim of the Jeju 4 and 3 Incident on four occasions from June 8, 2000 to November 30, 207, 15, 100, and 32,400 victims, and a total of 32,03 victims, and the criteria for deliberation and determination of victims of the Jeju 4 and 3 Incident, around 2002, as a result of the examination of the above reporters on April 209, the defendant decided to include 13,564 victims of the Jeju 4 and 3 Incident, 29, and 239 victims, respectively (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence No. 8 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful

A. Party’s assertion

The plaintiffs are the bereaved family members, the Veterans Association, members of the Sung-do Association, and other patriotic organizations of persons who have made a sacrifice by their former soldiers at the time of the April 3 Incident. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant is not eligible to seek the lawsuit of this case since they did not infringe legal interests due to the disposition of this case as a third party who is not the subject of the disposition of this case and was not the subject of the disposition of this case. The plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case which they decided as victims of this case is unlawful and significant since they would damage the legitimacy of the Republic of Korea and restore honor to those who committed the act of harming the foundation of the liberal democratic fundamental order, and thus, they did not infringe legal interests due to the disposition of this case.

B. Determination

(1) Even a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, has a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the validity or existence of the administrative disposition, if there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the validity or existence of the administrative disposition, the standing to sue is recognized, and the legal interest here refers to the case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the disposition. However, it does not include cases where it is only an indirect, factual, or economic interest, such as an abstract, average, or general interest commonly held by the general public as a result of protecting the public (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3964 delivered on February 28, 195, etc.).

(2) In full view of Articles 1, 2 subparag. 1, 2 subparag. 2, 6, and 7 of the Jeju 4 and 3 Incident Act, Jeju 4 and 3 Incident No. 4 and 3 shall take place at the beginning of March 1, 1947, and residents in the course of armed conflict and suppression in Jeju Do by September 21, 1954.

The case at the time of the sacrificeed incident) was enacted for the purpose of enhancing human rights, developing democracy, and conducting free democracy evaluation in the situation of "an act detrimental to or against the fundamental order of free democracy" in the Jeju 4 and 3 cases, focusing on the fact that the bereaved family members of the victims were suffering from severe mental and property damage due to ties, etc.

Ultimately, even if the victim's decision under the Jeju 43 Incident Act suffered disadvantage that is not the other party to the decision, "a person or organization, who is not the other party to the decision," and "a sense of duty to protect the fundamental order of free democracy," this cannot be deemed as a direct and specific legal interest that is protected by the laws and regulations based on the defendant's disposition of the victim. This legal principle applies to the case where the subject of the honorary appraisal is a soldier at the time of the Jeju 43 Incident or a bereaved family member who was sacrifed by the person who was a party to the decision, or an organization with patriotic spirit, etc. who was sacrifies by the person who was a party to the decision.

(3) In this case, the plaintiffs are merely third parties unrelated to the disposition of this case, which decided the persons listed in the list of victims as victims by the Jeju 4 and 3 Incident Act, and it is difficult to view that they have a direct and specific interest that is protected by the law of the ground for the disposition of this case. Since it is merely an indirect or factual interest, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the cancellation of the disposition of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, all plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

Judges OOO

Judges OOOO.

(Omission of List of Victims)