(a) Where any third party who is not the direct counterpart to an administrative disposition has any legal interest in seeking the revocation of such administrative disposition;

(b) The case holding that the legal interest referred to in paragraph (1) cannot be deemed to be the legal interest of the village and its surrounding land and grave on the ground, which deviates from the fear of damaging damage, such as dust, noise, water pollution, etc. due to revocation of the designation, approval or disposition of the factory location;

A. Even a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the administrative disposition, if there is a legal interest in seeking the revocation thereof, the standing to sue is recognized, and legal interest here refers to cases where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the relevant disposition, but it does not include cases where it is merely an indirect, factual, or economic interest, such as abstract, average, and ordinary interests common to the

(b) The case holding that the related provisions of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act and the Industrial Sites and Development Act applicable to the standards, etc. for the approval of designation of sites for the establishment of factories under the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act and Article 18 of the same Act are aimed at contributing to the sound development of the national economy through continuous industrial development and balanced regional development by inducing the smooth supply of industrial sites and the rational placement of industries, supporting the smooth establishment of factories, and by realizing systematic management of industrial sites and industrial complexes by realizing systematic management of industrial sites and industrial complexes, and that, in light of the contents of the above, the benefits such as those which deviate from the concern that the designation of factory sites for concrete manufacturing industry sites and factories adjacent to the planned site for factories may cause harm to dust, noise, water pollution, etc. due to the cancellation of the designation of factory sites for factories for factories, shall not be considered as direct and specific interests protected by the Act on the basis of the approval of the designation of sites, and it does not justify the occurrence of pollution caused by the operation of the constructed factory sites, and thus, it shall be subject to separate regulations, residents living in Seoul and shall not seek cancellation of the designated sites within 20 meters adjacent sites.

(b)Article 12(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 18 of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act; Articles 1 and 40 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1709 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1577) 93Nu8139 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2440) 93Nu24247 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1499) B. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7900 delivered on November 13, 1990 (Gong190, 1971) 89Nu756 delivered on November 13, 1990 (Gong191, 104)

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee In-bok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Co., Ltd.

Daejeon High Court Decision 93Gu1136 delivered on February 25, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even a third party, who is not the direct counter-party of an administrative disposition, has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the administrative disposition, standing to sue is recognized, but the legal interest here refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the relevant disposition. However, it does not include cases where a person has an indirect or factual interest, such as an abstract, average, and general interest common by the general public as a result of the protection of public interest. (See Supreme Court Decision 93Nu24247 delivered on April 12, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu8139 delivered on July 27, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu13700 delivered on December 8, 192).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the approval of the designation of the factory site on January 20, 1993 by the defendant against the defendant's defendant's defendant's 1, 200 factory construction, the above disposition was erroneous in the determination of the factory site by making the "other concrete manufacturing business" capable of manufacturing all concrete products in the area necessary for the housing construction business as its type of business, and as such, if the above type of business is constructed on the land of this case, it would cause harm to the residential life of the village adjacent to the land of this case where the plaintiff and 2 were living in the village of this case due to dust, noise, water pollution, etc. However, the defendant's approval of the designation of the factory site of this case was sought as unjust disposition deviating from the scope of discretion, but there is no possibility that the above disposition would cause harm to the housing life of the above 5th factory site due to the construction site of this case, and it would be reasonable to provide the plaintiff's reasonable and reasonable industrial complex development guidelines and industrial complex development guidelines applicable to the above industrial site.

The above determination of the court below is just and acceptable in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or standing to sue due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, or in the misapprehension of legal principles or the contradiction of reasons.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)