[2] The scope of a legal interest in seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition by a third party who is not the other party directly to an administrative disposition

[3] In a case where a mutual savings and finance company filed an administrative appeal against an order to manage affairs and property by the Minister of Finance and Economy and was dismissed, whether the above company's director and shareholders who are not the direct counterpart to the ruling or oligopolistic shareholders of the above company can be admitted as standing to sue in the revocation lawsuit

[2] Even if a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition has a direct and specific interest in the disposition, the standing to sue in the disposition in question shall be recognized, but if it is merely an indirect and economic interest, such standing to sue shall not be recognized.

[3] In a case where a mutual savings and finance company filed an administrative appeal against the order of business management and administration by the Minister of Finance and Economy and was dismissed, the above company's director and the stockholder or oligopolistic stockholder of the above company who are not the direct counter party to the pertinent ruling shall not have a direct and indirect interest in the pertinent ruling, but merely have a substantial and indirect interest in the pertinent ruling.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on December 6, 1995, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the Minister of Finance and Economy made an administrative appeal on February 5, 1996 by the plaintiff's imprisonment without prison labor which violated the business and property management order under Article 23-2 of the former Mutual Saving and Finance Act (amended by Act No. 5050, Dec. 29, 1995) on the ground that the plaintiff's imprisonment without prison labor, which caused the unsound management of the business and property status of the mutual savings and finance company (hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff mutual savings and finance company") and dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for revocation of the ruling in this case because it was erroneous in the composition of the above administrative appeals commission under the Prime Minister's resolution on June 11, 1996.

2. Ex officio, it is obvious that the person who filed the lawsuit in this case on behalf of the Plaintiff’s depository is the representative director of the Plaintiff’s depository. Since from the date of the above order for business management and property management to the Plaintiff, he does not have the authority to file a lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff’s depository, and even a third party who is not the other party to the administrative disposition has a direct and specific interest in the disposition, if he has a direct and specific interest in the disposition, he cannot be acknowledged as standing to sue in the action in this case, but if he has an indirect and economic interest, he cannot be recognized as standing to sue (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu24247, Apr. 12, 1994). Thus, the plaintiff 2 (the director and shareholder of the Plaintiff’s depository) or the oligopolistic shareholder of the Plaintiff 3 (the Plaintiff’s oligopolistic shareholder) is merely a person having a direct and indirect interest in the decision in this case.

Nevertheless, the court below judged whether the representative director of the plaintiff's credit cooperative or the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 3 have an inherent illegality in the adjudication of this case on the premise that the plaintiff 3 has standing to sue or not. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the representative authority of the credit cooperative in receipt of an order to manage its affairs and property and the standing to sue of its officers and shareholders.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)