[1] The scope of legal interest in seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition by a third party who is not the other party directly to an administrative disposition

[2] Whether a person who cannot be appointed as a representative director of the medical insurance association has a standing to seek revocation of non-approval of the appointment of the representative director of the medical insurance association

[1] A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, shall be acknowledged as standing to sue in the event of a legal interest in seeking revocation of the administrative disposition. However, the legal interest here refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the pertinent disposition, and it does not include indirect or factual or economic interest.

[2] Even if the non-approval disposition on the appointment of the representative director of the medical insurance association is unlawful, it is clear that the direct and specific disadvantage resulting therefrom will be borne by the medical insurance association, which is the other party to the disposition. Therefore, it is sufficient to have the medical insurance association dispute about the illegality of the above disposition, and the person who is unable to take office as the representative director of the medical insurance association due to the above disposition is only indirectly or de facto disadvantage, and therefore there

[1] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Insurance Act, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17099 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1577), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu8139 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2440), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu24247 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1499), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1454 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3538) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 85Nu184 delivered on September 24, 1985 (Gong1985, 1438)

Plaintiff (Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do Governor (Attorney Shin Sung-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu1389 delivered on August 31, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even a third party who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the administrative disposition, standing to sue should be recognized. However, legal interest refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the relevant disposition, but it does not include indirect or factual or economic interest (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu24247 delivered on April 12, 1994).

Even if the disposition of this case is unlawful as the plaintiff asserted, it is obvious that the direct and specific disadvantage caused by the disposition will be borne by the non-party Sung-gun Medical Insurance Association, the other party to the disposition, so it is sufficient to have the above medical insurance association dispute about the illegality of the above disposition. Even if the plaintiff was unable to take office as the representative director of the above medical insurance association due to the above disposition, it is nothing more than that of indirect or actual disadvantage (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu184 delivered on September 24, 1985). Thus, there is no standing to seek the revocation of the above disposition.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as discussed. There is no reason to discuss.

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)