Signature (Attorney Yoon-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Secretary General of the Mapo Regional Shipping Bureau

Jindo Transportation Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

on July 22, 1969

The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's second contribution quota owned by the defendant as to the defendant's supplementary intervenor was revoked administrative disposition on April 29, 1968 on the modification of the vessel operation plan.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

First, according to the facts that the plaintiff's main causes of the lawsuit before entering the main part of the case, the plaintiff owned the Jindo house and obtained a license for the vessel operation of the Jindo house and the Jindo house from about 15 years prior to the arrival of the main part of the lawsuit, and so far, he has been in operation continuously, and the defendant was replaced by the government support to ensure that the vessel operation of the Jindo house and the Jindo house will be able to operate between the plaintiff's auxiliary ship's main part of the lawsuit between the plaintiff's main part of the lawsuit and the plaintiff's main part of the lawsuit. The plaintiff changed the license of August 29, 1948 to take two times a day between the Jindo-gu sea house in which the marine traffic is extremely convenient, and the plaintiff has already obtained a license for the exhibition apartment house and made an alteration of the vessel operation business to take two times a day on which the plaintiff suffered a huge loss in the business by infringing the right of the plaintiff's already receiving the license of the plaintiff's already in operation of the exhibition apartment.

On April 29, 1968, the fact that the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, issued a disposition to revise the plan for the operation of a ship to the second degree owned by the Intervenor joining the Defendant’s Intervenor, was acknowledged. However, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s apartment site is not owned by the Plaintiff, but owned by Nonparty 1 Shipping Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s apartment site is not owned by the Plaintiff. As such, according to the description of the evidence No. 8, which does not conflict with the Plaintiff’s establishment of a health belt, the above apartment site was owned by the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2, and thereafter, it can be acknowledged that the ownership was transferred to Nonparty 5, 1968, and there is no other evidence to decide on it.

If so, the plaintiff who already lost the ownership of the above apartment house is not in the position of being infringed on rights due to the administrative disposition of the plaintiff's assertion in wartime, so the benefit of protecting the right to seek the cancellation of the administrative disposition is lost.

Therefore, this lawsuit shall be null and void due to the defect in the requirements of the lawsuit, and since this defect cannot be corrected, this lawsuit shall be dismissed, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act to the burden of litigation costs.

August 19, 1969

Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Judge)