(a) Where a third party has standing to sue to seek revocation of administrative disposition;

(b) Cases where there is no legal interest in seeking a revocation of a change in water source protection area to a third party;

(c) A case where there is a legal interest to seek revocation of a decision on urban planning by a third party;

A. A. A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the administrative disposition, standing to sue is recognized. The legal interest here refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the pertinent disposition. However, it does not include cases where it is merely an indirect, factual, economic, or interest, such as an abstract, average, and ordinary profit common to the general public as a result of protecting public interest.

B. The purpose of protecting Article 5(1) of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act and Article 7(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which serve as the basis for the establishment of a water source protection area, is only the securing of water sources and the preservation of water quality, and the benefits of receiving high-quality water supply by preventing the contamination of water sources by local residents who are receiving water supply in the water source area are obviously and specifically not protecting the benefits of receiving high-quality water supply by preventing them from directly and specifically. Thus, there is no legal interest to seek the revocation of the change of the above water source protection area.

C. Article 125(1) of the Regulations on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities, enacted by delegation of Article 12(3) of the Urban Planning Act, provides that the structure and installation of crematoriums shall be governed by the Burial and Graveyard, etc. In addition, Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act, if the contents of urban planning are related to the installation of crematoriums, not only Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act, but also Article 4 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, shall be deemed as the relevant Act. Thus, Article 4 subparag. 2 of the same Act limits public crematoriums to areas where 20 or more authorizations are concentrated, schools or public places where the public gather frequently, or places where 1,00 meters or more are located, and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is likely to cause harm to national health, and the benefits of neighboring residents protected by the prohibition of installation of public crematoriums in residential areas, commercial areas, industrial areas, and green belt areas, etc. under Article

(b)Article 12(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act. Article 12(b) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 5(1) of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, Article 7(1)(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Supply and Waterworks Act, Article 7(3) of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act, Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu13700 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 466) 93Nu8139 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2440) 93Nu24247 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1499). Supreme Court Decision 73Nu96,97 delivered on May 13, 1975 (Gong1975, 840) 90Nu10360 delivered on December 13, 1991 (Gong192, 535) 91Nu13212 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong192, 193Nu319389 delivered on September 13, 199)

Plaintiff 1 and 298 Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and three others

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

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu7365 delivered on October 14, 1994

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the claim for cancellation of urban planning decision is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

All remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal to which the above appeal was dismissed are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the administrative disposition, shall be recognized as standing to sue. However, the legal interest here refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the pertinent disposition. However, the case where it is merely an indirect, factual, or economic interest, such as abstract, average, and general interest commonly owned by the general public as a result of the protection of public interest, shall not be included (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu13700, Dec. 8, 1992; 93Nu8139, Jul. 27, 1993; 93Nu24247, Apr. 12, 1994).

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) as of the date of closure of the above-mentioned public crematorium, which was operated by the Defendant’s city based on evidence, for the reason of housing smuggling in the vicinity of the facility, etc.; (b) as of the date of the Busan Si Park, which is a public cemetery for the installation of substitute crematoriums, the Busan Si Park, 83-2, 69,200 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) were selected as its site; (c) however, the instant land was designated as a water source protection area pursuant to Article 5 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, which is adjacent to the instant land which is supplied to some areas of the city, which is located within the water source protection area of the city; and (d) as of the date of the determination of the water source protection area of the 19th Urban Planning Act, the interests of the residents of the city, which are obviously located within the area of the 1st century and its neighboring urban planning facilities cannot be established under the Urban Planning Act.

3. The above determination by the court below as to standing to sue in a water source protection area alteration disposition and its revocation lawsuit is just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

4. However, Article 125(1) of the Regulations on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities enacted pursuant to delegation of Article 12(3) of the Urban Planning Act provides that the structure and installation of crematoriums shall be governed by the Burial and Graveyard, etc. In a case where the contents of urban planning are related to the installation of crematoriums, not only Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act but also Article 12 of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof shall be deemed as the relevant Act. Thus, Article 4 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act imposes restrictions on public crematoriums in an area where 20 or more authorizations are concentrated, a school or a place where the public gather at any time, or a place where the public gather at any time, and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is likely to cause harm to national health, and the benefits of nearby residents protected by the prohibition of installation of public crematoriums in residential areas, commercial areas, industrial areas, and green areas under Article 17 of the Urban Planning Act shall be the legal benefits protected by the relevant Act on the determination of

Therefore, the court below did not have standing to sue to seek cancellation of the above urban planning disposition on the premise that the above law does not infringe on the interests protected by the above law, under the premise that the above law did not have standing to sue, even though whether or not the plaintiffs have standing to sue, considering whether or not the plaintiffs reside in the above area as above, even though whether or not the merits of this case will be cited, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the legal interests protected by the law of the basis of the urban planning disposition and the corresponding legal interests, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

There is reason to point this out.

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the plaintiffs' claim for cancellation of urban planning decision among the plaintiffs' appeals is reversed and remanded to the court below. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal as to the dismissed portion 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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)