Whether the head of Si/Gun has interests in a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the Si relocation disposition, and the other party to the lawsuit

Where the defendant (Do Governor) has approved the transfer of the livestock market by the head of the Gun, the other party who is the head of the Gun, who is the head of the Gun, seeking the cancellation of the transfer disposition, and the plaintiff, who is only the person using the market by selling livestock in the market, is merely an infringement of the so-called anti-private interest and cannot be deemed to have infringed the rights under the public law due to the transfer. Therefore, there is no benefit

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

December 28, 1971 71Nu109 decided Dec. 71, 197 (Article 1 (251), 1176, 1945, 19 third 49)

Plaintiff

Governor of Jeollabuk-do

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the administrative disposition that the defendant moved to the second market of the Dong Eup/Myeon in the Dong Eup/Myeon located in the Dong, Dong, Dong, Dong, Dong, Dong, Dong, Dong, Dong, Dong.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

According to the purport of the arguments by the parties concerned, the defendant shall, upon the request of the head of Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon, authorize the relocation of the said livestock market from the time of Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon to the Eup/Myeon/Dong on April 26, 1962, and the head of Gun shall, upon the said relocation approval, publicly announce the relocation of the said livestock market on April 26, 199, close the previous livestock market located in the Dong/Eup/Myeon as of May 11 of the same year, and from May 12, 199, the plaintiff and the designated parties sold livestock in the Dong-Eup/Myeon/Dong-dong livestock market for a long time.

Therefore, the plaintiff or the designated parties are not those subject to the non-person's administrative disposition, but they actually cause inconvenience to the use or make it impossible to use the land due to the relocation of the Dong market, but it is nothing more than that of the anti-private disadvantage due to the relocation of the Dong market, and the transfer of the land cannot be deemed to have infringed on the rights under the public law. Thus, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the transfer of the land, and the defendant's disposition of the transfer of the land was made against the application for the cancellation of the transfer of the land as seen above, and it is clear that the transfer of the land became the head of Dong-Eup who is the market founder, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case involving the defendant who is not the

Therefore, this lawsuit is dismissed as it appears to be a single copy, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act Article 95 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to litigation costs.

Judges Lee Il-il (Presiding Judge)