In the case of so-called party litigation, the defendant

In the case of the so-called party lawsuit, which is a lawsuit on the relationship of rights under public law between the parties who have equal conflict, the opposing state, public organization or private person who has public authority, etc. shall be the defendant.

Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Kim Jong-han

Korea

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff confirms that the plaintiff has the qualification to be affected by death.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Since the plaintiff passed the intrusion qualifying examination conducted on April 1943, and around that time, the plaintiff started business at the Nam-si city at the time after he had obtained the intrusion license pursuant to Article 1 of the Embrymbling Business Rules (Ordinance No. 10, Oct. 16, 1914), and lost the certificate, the above intrusion license was lost while he went through his work after August 15, 194, but the above invasion license was the latter part of Paragraph 3 of the Addenda of Article 59 of the Korean Medical Service Act (Ordinance No. 55, Nov. 28, 1960) and Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Addenda of the Korean Medical Service Act (Ordinance No. 253, Feb. 16, 1973) and Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of the Korean Medical Service Act (Rules No. 261, Dec. 26, 1975).

After a specific administrative disposition has been taken, in the case of the so-called appeal suit seeking the cancellation or change of the disposition on the grounds of illegality of the disposition, the state or public organization should be the defendant, and therefore, in theoretical sense, the state or public organization, who is the subject of the right, should take the measures of attack and defense in the lawsuit, or the administrative agency having actually conducted the disposition, may be the defendant, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts and subordinate statutes, except as otherwise provided for in Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the administrative agency having taken the disposition shall be the defendant, but in the case of the so-called party suit, which is the lawsuit concerning the legal relationship in the public law between the parties in equal conflict, the administrative agency shall not be the defendant, but in the case of the so-called party suit, the state, public organization or public authority, which is the subject of the right in the public law

However, in the case of this case, according to the provisions of Article 60 (2), Article 5 and Article 9 of the Medical Service Act (Act No. 2862 of Dec. 31, 1975), the Minister of Health and Welfare, who is an agency of the defendant, should obtain the qualification of the victim only, and as seen above, all of the duties concerning the succession of the qualification of the victim of this case can be seen as the original authority of the Minister of Health and Welfare, which is the defendant's agency. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is the subject of the legal relationship concerning the existence of the qualification of the victim of this case. Thus, as asserted above, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is a lawsuit concerning the legal relationship of the public law, which is the subject of the claim for confirmation of the status or status of the victim of this case, as long as the plaintiff has a legal interest in the protection of rights or legal interest in the relation of the legal status or status of the performer of this case, which is the subject of the right to claim such confirmation. Therefore, the party of the defendant's qualification of this case is the defendant.

However, even if the plaintiff asserts that he had obtained a license, he shall file an application with the Do governor and obtain a license. He may not obtain a new licence within 1943 and 1945. Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the Medical Service Act (No. 221 of Sep. 25, 1951) and Article 59 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act (No. 55 of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 57 of Nov. 28, 1960), and Article 59 (1) of the Medical Service Act (No. 253 of Feb. 16, 197), and Article 60 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act (No. 2862 of Dec. 31, 1975) provides that the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act (No. 365 of the Medical Service Act) shall be issued to the Do governor.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed without examining the merits of the case, and the lawsuit costs are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges fixed-time (Presiding Judge)