[1] Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of an administrative disposition whose effective period has expired (negative with qualification)

[2] The case holding that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition on the grounds that there are no special circumstances to deem that the designation is in violation of any legal interest due to the remaining external existence of the designation as a wholesale market corporation for agricultural and fishery products since the term of validity expires

[1] Where the effective period is specified in an administrative disposition, if the validity or execution of the disposition is not suspended, the effect of such administrative disposition is invalidated at the expiration of the above period, and there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of such disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed due to the remaining shape of the disposition after the expiration of such period.

[2] The case holding that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition on the grounds that there are no specific circumstances to deem that the designation of a local wholesale market corporation for agricultural and fishery products is in violation of any legal interest due to the remaining external form of the designation

[1] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 12 (see current Article 17) and 17 (1) (see current Article 23 (1)) of the former Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fishery Products, Etc. (amended by Act No. 6223, Jan. 28, 200); Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu14148 delivered on October 17, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3544), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14708 delivered on December 20, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 411), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu7397 delivered on July 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2532), Supreme Court Decision 98Du14471 delivered on February 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 568)

Joint Agricultural Products Corporation

Ansan-si (Law Firm Dolled Law Office, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

International Authority and Co., Ltd. (formerly: Ansan International Authority and Co., Ltd.) (Law Offices at New Seas, Attorneys Noh Han-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu4189 delivered on July 13, 2000

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

In a case where the effective period of an administrative disposition is fixed, if the validity or execution of the disposition is not suspended, the effect of the administrative disposition is invalidated at the expiration of the above period, and there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed due to the remaining effect of the disposition after the expiration of the period (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu14148 delivered on October 17, 195).

Pursuant to the relevant provisions such as Article 12(1) and (3), and Article 17(1) of the former Act on the Agriculture and Forestry Industry Promotion (amended by Act No. 6223 of Jan. 28, 2000), the Mayor shall establish a local wholesale market with the permission of the Do Governor, and designate a wholesale market corporation with the validity period of at least three years but less than ten years to operate such local wholesale market. Accordingly, it can be known that the Defendant designated the Defendant as a wholesale market corporation of the agricultural and fishery products wholesale market in Ansan City on Jun. 26, 1995 and issued the designation validity period to the Defendant’s Intervenor on Dec. 31, 1998.

As above, in this case where there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition, unless there is any specific circumstance to deem that the disposition is in violation of any legal interest due to the expiration of the term of validity of the designated disposition, and thus, the lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is unlawful.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, and it is inevitable to reverse it. The court of this case directly decides to dismiss the lawsuit of this case, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who decide to pay the total costs of the lawsuit at the plaintiff's expense.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)