(a) Where a third party, other than the other party to an administrative disposition, can seek the revocation and nullification of the disposition;

(b) A registered company with a construction right which has a joint and several surety pursuant to Article 7 (3) 2 of the former Rules on Housing Supply;

Whether there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the disposition approved for the invitation of residents;

(a) Even a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, where the legal interest has been infringed on by the administrative disposition, the legal interest is legally entitled to be judged by the party's propriety by filing an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the disposition or the nullification thereof, and the legal interest refers to the case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the basis of the disposition, but it does not include any case where it is

B. Where a construction company which obtained approval of a housing construction project plan pursuant to Article 33 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act and Article 32-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act does not immediately cancel a mortgage on the site, and applies for approval of the recruitment of occupants by submitting a joint and several guarantee certificate, etc. of the registered company entitled to construction pursuant to Article 7(1)2 and Article 7(3)2 of the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 537 of Sep. 1, 1993), and the administrative agency approves the application, the registration company shall not be deemed to deny its joint and several liability even if the above registered company is subject to the confirmation of the approval of the recruitment of occupants, and the registered company shall not be deemed to have any indirect or factual interest with respect to the confirmation of invalidity of the disposition, and the registered company shall not be deemed to have any direct and specific interest protected by the law on the basis of the disposition. Therefore, the registered company shall not have legal interest in filing a lawsuit for the confirmation of invalidation.

(a)Article 12(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 32 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act; Article 7(1)2 and Article 7(3)2 of the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 537 of September 1, 1993);

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu13700 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 466) 93Nu8139 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2440) 93Nu24247 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1499)

Dongdong Housing Co., Ltd. and two plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other

Gun of mountain Gun

Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu1501 delivered on October 6, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined ex officio prior to examining them.

1. A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, is legally entitled to a decision of the propriety thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation or nullity of the administrative disposition, and the legal interest mentioned above refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the ground of the disposition, but it does not include cases where there is an indirect or factual or economic interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu8135, May 23, 1989; 90Nu10360, Dec. 13, 1991; 91Nu13212, Sept. 22, 1992; 91Nu13700, Dec. 8, 1992; 93Nu138139, Jul. 27, 1993; 93Nu24247, Apr. 12, 1994).

2. According to the facts established by the court below, the non-party Docheon Construction Co., Ltd. obtained approval from the defendant on August 16, 1993 for the construction project plan for constructing an apartment building on the site of this case pursuant to Article 33 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act and Article 32-2 of its Enforcement Decree, and commenced the construction project on September 1 of the same year. According to Article 7 (1) 2 and (3) 2 of the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance No. 537 of Sep. 1, 1993), where the building site of this case is the object of mortgage, the non-party Docheon Construction Co., Ltd. may, in principle, invite occupants only after the cancellation of the mortgage. However, if the construction completion of this house and the implementation of cancellation of the mortgage on the site of this case are notarized by two or more registered business operators or registered business operators with the right to construct the apartment site of this case, the plaintiffs can not be seen as being subject to the plaintiffs' right to directly and indirectly cancelled the construction plan of this case.

3. Therefore, although the lawsuit of this case was filed by a person who has no legal interest in filing a lawsuit, and was dismissed, it is erroneous for the court below to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that the defendant's disposition of this case did not reach this point and is not void as a matter of course.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and since it is sufficient to render a judgment directly by a party member based on the facts established by the court below, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the grounds that the lawsuit in this case is dismissed in accordance with the reasons mentioned above, and the total costs of the lawsuit are to be borne by the losing party.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)