[1] Standing to sue in administrative litigation

[2] The case holding that the representative of a member of the Federation of Marriage Counseling Centers has no standing or interest in filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of the application for rejection of the application for establishment of the Federation

[1] The administrative litigation has no interest in filing an administrative litigation, unless there is a benefit to bring an action only by a person who obtains a direct and specific benefit by law due to the cancellation of the pertinent disposition by an administrative agency and only has a factual and indirect relationship.

[2] The case holding that the representative of a member of the Korean Marriage Counseling Association has no standing or interest in filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of the application for revocation of establishment of the Federation

[1] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu24247 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1499), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8129 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3284), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12487 delivered on March 8, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1269), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3630 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2395)

Plaintiff

The Minister of Health and Welfare

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu22582 delivered on December 20, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

ex officio, administrative litigation is not a profit to a person who has a direct and indirect relationship only with a person who obtains a direct and concrete benefit by the administrative agency because the administrative agency's revocation of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12487 delivered on March 8, 196).

According to the records, the application for permission of incorporation of this case was filed by the non-corporate association of the non-corporate association of the non-corporate association of the non-corporate association of the non-corporate association (hereinafter referred to as the "non-corporate association"). It is evident that the counter-party to the disposition of rejection of the application for permission of incorporation of this case is the non-party federation. Thus, although the plaintiff applied for permission of incorporation of this case as the representative of the non-party federation, the plaintiff did not directly receive the disposition of this case, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff suffered any infringement of rights or legal disadvantage due to the disposition of this case. However, as the counter-corporate effect of the rejection disposition of this case, the non-party federation to which the plaintiff belongs merely suffers any de facto disadvantage due to the non-corporate association's non-corporate

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the standing to sue or the interest in a lawsuit in an administrative litigation against this point and rendered a judgment on the merits. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained, and the lawsuit in this case is unlawful and its defects cannot be corrected, and thus, the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Ho-ho (Presiding Justice)