(a) The case holding that no national expressway bus transport business association has standing to sue to seek revocation of the approval for changes in its business plan for bus transport business operators;

B. Whether a defect was corrected due to a change in petitioner in the administrative appeal procedure filed by a person without standing to file a petition (negative)

A. Even if the Plaintiff’s express bus transport business association is a trade organization established with high-speed bus transport business as its members and with high-speed bus transport business license, and the business is conducted to promote the sound development of express bus transport business and the common interests of express bus transport business operators, the Plaintiff’s association does not file an administrative lawsuit seeking the revocation of the authorization of changes in the bus transport business plan of this case for the purpose that the Plaintiff’s express bus transport business operator was to divide part of the operation system of the main bus route and extend the closing point through the main bus to Seoul, and thereby, it infringes on the economic interests of the express bus transport business operator, regardless of the fact that the change in the bus transport plan of this case is infringed on the route, or that the Plaintiff’s association, which is not an express bus transport business operator, has a direct and specific interest in the disposition of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s association cannot file an administrative lawsuit seeking the revocation of the authorization of changes in the bus transport business plan of this case.

B. Voluntary change of appellant in the administrative appeal procedure under the Administrative Appeals Act is not permitted in principle. Thus, a request for a trial filed by a person who is not qualified to file a request is unlawful and its defects cannot be corrected.

(a) Article 12 of the Administrative Appeals Act;

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu59 delivered on July 12, 1983, 87Nu119 delivered on May 26, 1987

Gwangju High High Court Decision 8 Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Do Governor of Gyeonggi-do;

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Daegu High Court Decision 87Gu268 delivered on May 31, 1989

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiffs' attorney

(1) A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, has standing to sue in a lawsuit seeking revocation or alteration of the disposition in case legal interests are infringed on by the disposition. However, "legal interests" refer to the direct and specific interests that should be legally protected (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu119, May 26, 1987; 83Nu59, Jul. 12, 1983).

The court below held that although the plaintiff's national expressway bus transport business association (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff's association") is a trade organization established with high-speed bus transport business operators as its members and carries out the business of promoting the sound development of express bus transport business and the joint interests of express bus transport business operators, the defendant's defendant's association participant (hereinafter referred to as the "participating") who is the cross-city bus transport business operator on May 27, 1987, who is the defendant's association participant (hereinafter referred to as the "participating") who is the cross-city bus transport business operator, the defendant's association should be divided into part of the operation system of Daegu-Sang-Sang-Sang-Sang-si bus route owned by the intervenor to Seoul, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's own legal interest of the plaintiff's association is infringed, regardless of the economic interest of the passenger transport business operator who is related to the route of the non-exclusive bus transport business operator, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the plaintiff's standing to sue's lawsuit in this case.

(2) According to the relevant provisions of the Automobile Transport Business Act, the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the articles of association of the Plaintiff Union, the court below held that the Plaintiff Union is conducting its own business in its own independent position, separate from each of the express bus transport businesses of its members, and that it is only possible to do so, and that it does not concurrently hold the agency qualification or agent qualification of each express bus transport business operator who is a member, or is entitled to the agency or agent's function. In light of the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no ground for discussion.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

(1) On June 11, 1987, the court below confirmed that all remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff association (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff company") were members of the plaintiff association and the representative director of the plaintiff association were directors of the plaintiff association. The plaintiff company and the non-party company were informed that each of the dispositions of this case was taken around June 11, 1987, the plaintiff association made a recommendation to the defendant on June 29, 200, and filed an administrative appeal with the Minister of Construction and Transportation on June 29, 29. The plaintiff company filed an appeal against the Minister of Construction and Transportation on July 29, the plaintiff company and the non-party company filed an application for the change of plaintiff company from the plaintiff association to the same order and order of the non-party company (the plaintiff company did not file an application for the change of plaintiff company) but the plaintiff company and the non-party company filed an appeal for the change of plaintiff company from the plaintiff association to the same order (the plaintiff company did not have filed an application for the change of plaintiff company). Accordingly, the plaintiff company's appeal is inappropriate.

(2) Examining and comparing the relevant evidence with the record, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of law as to the preparation of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit (the original trial did not determine that the plaintiff company was aware of the fact of the disposition of this case on June 11, 1987; since the plaintiff company was aware of the fact of the disposition of this case on June 11, 1987, the plaintiff company should not be deemed to have become aware of the fact of the disposition of this case at that time). There is no reason to discuss.

(3) In the administrative appeal procedure under the Administrative Appeals Act, a voluntary change of appellant is not permitted in principle. Thus, a request for a trial filed by a non-qualified appellant is unlawful and defective, and it is not possible to correct it, but it is not possible to deem that the plaintiff company filed a request for an administrative appeal, but the plaintiff company filed a request for change of appellant from the plaintiff association to the plaintiff company (the plaintiff company did not file an application for change of appellant), and there is no room to regard the plaintiff company as filing a new request for an administrative appeal. Therefore, the judgment of the court below with this purport is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

We cannot accept the argument that the plaintiff company should be deemed to have filed a new appeal when the plaintiff company filed an application for change of claimant.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)