[1] The meaning of legal interest as a requirement for a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, to seek the revocation of an administrative disposition

[2] The case holding that the provisional disposition holder has no legal interest in seeking revocation of the above disposition, in case where the competent administrative agency received a provisional disposition on a building owner's status, and sent a reply that the provisional disposition on the merits based on the provisional disposition is possible to change the name of the owner, but received the report of change of the name of the owner

[1] A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, may seek the revocation of the administrative disposition in case where there is a legal interest to seek the revocation thereof, but in this case, a legal interest refers to a specific interest that is directly protected by a law based on the pertinent disposition, so in case where a third party has an indirect and de facto economic interest, no standing to seek the revocation

[2] The case holding that the provisional disposition holder has no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the above disposition, in case where the competent administrative agency received the provisional disposition based on the provisional disposition, and sent a reply that the above provisional disposition is possible to change the name of the owner, but received the change of the name of the owner, and the provisional disposition holder received the provisional disposition

[1] Article 1 [General Administrative Disposition], Article 2 (1) 1, and Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [General Administrative Disposition], Article 2 (1) 1, and Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3630 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2394), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14906 delivered on April 25, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1653), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10614 delivered on June 11, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 1427), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1006 delivered on July 23, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1799Ha, 1796), Supreme Court Decision 9Du6026 delivered on October 12, 199 (Gong199, 2345), Supreme Court Decision 9Nu209379 delivered on July 23, 199 (Gong299Sang, 2345), Supreme Court Decision 2005Nu1963975 delivered on December 25, 19997

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Budget Head of budget

Daejeon High Court Decision 97Gu3093 delivered on March 27, 1998

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, on October 11, 1995, the plaintiff 1 received a provisional disposition against the non-party 1 as owner of the building of this case, and then sent a reply that the defendant can change the name of the owner on December 13 of the same year only when the above provisional disposition should be cancelled to the plaintiff 1 during the lawsuit on the merits against the non-party 1. On the ground that the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2, who received the building of this case from the non-party 1, filed a report on the change of the name of the owner of the building of this case as of July 16, 1997 and the 22th day of the same month, the court below rejected the lawsuit by the plaintiffs on the ground that there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition of this case against the plaintiffs.

Even a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition may seek the revocation of the administrative disposition in case where there is a legal interest to seek the revocation of the disposition, but in this case, a legal interest refers to a specific interest that is directly protected by the law based on the relevant disposition, so in case where a third party has an indirect and substantial economic interest, there is no standing to seek the revocation of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu10360, Dec. 13, 1991; 96Nu10614, Jun. 11, 1999; 97Nu1337, Feb. 8, 2000).

In this case, even if the plaintiff 1 received the decision of provisional disposition prohibiting the disposition of the owner's status and the plaintiff 2 is in the same business relationship with the above plaintiff, the benefits that the plaintiffs in such status may obtain by cancelling the disposition of this case are not indirect or factual and economic interests, and it is difficult to view it as a specific interest that is directly protected by the law based on the grounds of the disposition of this case, and therefore there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition

The conclusion that the court below dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs' standing to sue is correct, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the judgment.

The grounds of appeal are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)