Whether a person who actually occupies the road site may file a claim for revocation of the disposition of permission for occupation and use of the site for others.

A person who does not actually occupy the ditch site of a road shall not have any interest in the protection of the right to seek revocation, as there is no infringement of the rights or legal interests even if the permission for occupation and use of the building site is imposed on others.

Articles 1 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs revoke the Defendant’s disposition of permission to occupy and use the road, ditch site against the Intervenor joining the Defendant as of February 26, 1968.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

As stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant’s Intervenor as of February 26, 1968, there is no dispute between the parties to the instant disposition. The Plaintiffs asserted that, from around October 1965, the Defendant rejected the application, and applied for permission to occupy and use the Defendant on December 16, 1967, while using the Plaintiffs from around 864 U.S. children of Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, which is the object of the instant disposition, the Defendant infringed the Plaintiffs’ rights to use the said road ditch site on the ground that: (a) the Defendant applied for permission to occupy and use from around October 1965; (b) the Defendant applied for permission to the Defendant on December 16, 1967; (c) the Defendant rejected the said application; and (d) the Defendant infringed the Plaintiffs’ rights to use the said road ditch site on the part of the Intervenor

However, according to the facts alleged by the plaintiffs, since it is nothing more than that the plaintiffs actually occupy the road ditch site of this case, any rights or legal interests infringed upon by the disposition of this case cannot be said to exist, the plaintiffs' claim for objection is ultimately without a benefit of protecting their rights.

Therefore, without making a decision on the remaining issues, the plaintiffs' claim for objection is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jung-so (Presiding Judge)