In case where a shareholder of a corporation is a transferee after an administrative disposition against the corporation, whether the standing to sue to seek revocation of such disposition is recognized (negative)

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Sol, Attorneys Soh Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm White, Attorney Cho Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seongdong Transportation Co., Ltd. (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Lee Dong- New et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu15458 decided December 17, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. A third party, who is not the direct counter party to an administrative disposition, is entitled to a decision of the propriety thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation or invalidity confirmation of the administrative disposition, where the interests protected by law are infringed by the administrative disposition, and the legal interests here refer to the cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu14230, Jun. 30, 1995; 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006).

On the other hand, shareholders of a corporation have a de facto or indirect interest in the administrative disposition against the corporation, and therefore, they do not have standing to sue to seek revocation of the disposition. However, if a shareholder of the corporation is a transferee after the administrative disposition against the corporation, the corporation is no longer able to conduct its business in whole, and the procedure of dissolution and liquidation is already scheduled at the time of the disposition, and even if the procedure is revoked, in exceptional cases where it is impossible to resume the business previously conducted by the corporation as long as the validity of the disposition is maintained, the shareholder has a direct and specific legal interest in the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5313, Jan. 27, 2005), and there is standing to sue against the validity of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5313, Jan. 27, 2005).

2. In light of the above legal principles and the records, although the court below's reasoning is inadequate, the court below's conclusion which dismissed the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the plaintiff, who acquired part of the shares of the defendant assistant intervenor company, did not have standing to sue as to the illegality of the disposition of this case only after the lapse of one month from the disposition of this case which accepted the report of transfer and takeover of passenger transport business between the defendant assistant intervenor company and the defendant assistant intervenor company, was justifiable. Contrary to the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to standing to sue

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the part arising from the participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)