Standing to sue in administrative litigation

Administrative litigation has no benefit to bring an action against a person who has a direct and specific interest in law due to the existence of a non-permission disposition by an administrative agency and has a de facto and indirect relationship.

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu119 Decided May 26, 1987

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Jae-in, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu720 delivered on February 8, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (the supplementary appellate brief is after the lapse of the period of appeal, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

Since administrative litigation is a non-permission disposition by an administrative agency, only a person who has a direct and specific interest in law is entitled to bring an action, but there is no benefit to bring an action.

In this case, the plaintiff asserts first, the Kim Jin-gun's rank, which is an independent movement within the fifth exhibition hall of the Independence Hall of Korea, was falsely exhibited in light of its contents and removed it and applied for a change in substitution of the Red Jin-gun's rank. Thus, the defendant's rejection of the above rejection disposition is sought to revoke the above rejection disposition. Second, the defendant's confirmation of the obligation to exhibit the materials related to the independent movement within the second, fourth,5,6 exhibition hall of the Independence Hall of Korea is sought, because the materials exhibition related to the independent movement within the second, fifth and sixth exhibition hall of the Independence Hall of Korea

The plaintiff's request is rejected because the plaintiff's request was made to correct the historical figures in the Independence Hall of Korea, and the plaintiff's request is rejected. Thus, even if the plaintiff has a de facto interest (a simple mental interest), it cannot be deemed that a direct and specific interest has been infringed by law, and the assertion that the plaintiff is obligated to exhibit because the exhibition in the Independence Hall of Korea has distorted historical facts and distorted the historical facts in the Independence Hall of Korea, is not subject to administrative litigation.

In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim of this case is just, since it cannot be deemed that there is a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the rejection disposition against the plaintiff, and it is against an act that cannot be the subject of an appeal litigation, and there is no error of violation of law or incomplete deliberation such as the theory of lawsuit.

From the opposite position, the argument of the judgment of the court below cannot be employed.

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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)