[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] Whether a landowner or an association, who applied for authorization within the period of application for authorization for the execution of a land readjustment project, has a legal interest in seeking cancellation of the authorization disposition for the execution of a land readjustment project against the local government to which he belongs (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that no standing to sue exists on the ground that a person who is neither a landowner nor a landowner within a land readjustment project district does not apply for authorization within the application period, or a person who is a member of the land rearrangement project association does not have any legal interest in seeking revocation of authorization of the land rearrangement project

[1] Even 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, the standing to sue is recognized, but the legal interest here refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the disposition, and it does not include cases where there is an indirect or factual interest.

[2] According to Articles 2(1)3, 5, 6, 7(1)1, 8, 9, 10(1), (2) and (3), 16, and 32 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16169 of February 8, 199), and Article 2-2, 4(1)1, 2, and 3 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16169 of March 3, 199), land owners in a land readjustment project execution zone (including superficies under the above Act) have the right to seek authorization from the Do governor or association within the same period of application for authorization of the land readjustment project, or the right to seek authorization of the land owner and association's legal interest within the same period of application for authorization or association's qualification and public announcement by the Do governor, the land owner or association's right to seek authorization of the above land readjustment project's legal interest within the period of application for authorization or association's legal interest.

[3] The case holding that a person who is neither a landowner nor a landowner within a land readjustment project district does not apply for authorization within the application period, or a person who is a member of the land rearrangement project association does not have any legal interest in seeking revocation of the authorization of the land readjustment project granted to the local government belonging to the Governor

[1] Article 1 [general administrative disposition] Articles 2 (1) 1 and 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 2 (1) 3, 5, 6, 7 (1) 1, 8, 9, 10 (1), (2) and (3), 16, and 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16169 of March 3, 199), Article 2-2, Article 4 (1) 1, 2, and 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Act No. 5904 of February 8, 199) / [2] Article 2 (1) 1, Article 7 (1), Article 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16169 of March 3, 199), Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1337 delivered on February 8, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 616) Supreme Court Decision 98Du7923 delivered on April 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1321) Supreme Court Decision 98Du13072 delivered on September 8, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2120)

Healy (Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Do Governor of Chungcheongnam-Nam

The astronomical Market

Daejeon District Court Decision 98Gu350 delivered on December 3, 1999

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2.The costs arising from the appeal of the Appointed’s disease, premise, and tin shall be borne by the Decree of the Appointed’s Authority, and the remainder of the costs arising from the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below is revoked. The defendant's disposition of approval for the execution of a land readjustment project in the Zone 1 of the Yanananbuk-gu, Seoul as of September 6, 1997 against the defendant's assistant intervenor as of Sep. 6, 1997, against the plaintiff, selected Kim Tae-tae, Yang Jae-chul, Yang Jae-chul, Yang Jae-nam, Kim Nam-Nam, Kim Jong-nam, Ho-nam, Park Jong-tae, and Cho Jong-kung, the defendant's disposition of approval for the execution of a land readjustment project in Zone 2 of the Yanbuk-gu, the Yanbuk-gu as of Dec. 9, 197

Basic Facts

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 57-1 through 19, Gap evidence 8-1, 12-4, Gap evidence 13 through 15, Gap evidence 17-1, 2, Gap evidence 18, Gap evidence 19-1, 20, Gap evidence 26-1, 29-3, 54-4, Eul evidence 57-1 through 19, Eul evidence 61, Eul evidence 83-1, 2, 11, 12-1 through 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 2-4, Eul evidence 2-1, 3-1, 3-1, 4-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, 5-2, 4-1, 5-2, 3-1, 5-2, 4-1, 5-2, 5-1, 4-

A. The land ownership relationship between the plaintiff and the designated parties

(1)The designated co-owners within the Zone I (1,327,721 m2, hereinafter referred to as Zone I), the urban planning zone from around 1995 to around 1995, shall also have the land owners in the Zone II (1,327,721 m2, hereinafter referred to as the " Zone I"), the designated co-oper's disease, the white salone, the white salone, the salone, and the Cho Sung-sung shall also have the land owners in the Zone II (1,068,463 m2, hereinafter referred to as the " Zone II"), the urban planning zone for the above period.

(2) However, on November 6, 1996, the Plaintiff owned the registration of ownership transfer of 109, 702 Madong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong 46-5 and its site ownership transfer on November 6, 1996, but on July 20, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired the registration of ownership transfer in the non-party Kim English-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (limited to the non-party Do-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong 1, 197.

(b) The reasons why the period for granting authorization for the execution of a land readjustment project in Zone 1 and 2 is designated;

(1) On December 2, 1994, the defendant decided to implement a land readjustment project in Zone 1 and Zone 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "land readjustment project in this case") in the north of the Yananannanananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannan

(2)However, there is an objection, such as filing an administrative appeal and a lawsuit against the above execution order by the defendant, by asserting that some landowners are the principal agent of the land readjustment project partnership established by the landowner who is not the intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the "cooperative"), the defendant revoked the order to implement the reorganization project of this case against the intervenor on February 5, 1996, and designated the period of application for the authorization to implement the reorganization project of this case from February 5, 1996 to August 10 of the same year in accordance with Article 10 of the Act with regard to Zone 1 and Zone 2 as the period of application for the authorization to implement the reorganization project of this case from February 5, 1996 to August 10 of the same year, but the above period of application was changed from February 5, 1996 to October 10, 196.

(c) Application for authorization to implement a land readjustment project and return disposition;

(1)The representative Kim Tae-tae, Yang Jae-tae, Yang Jae-chul, Kim Jong-nam, Cho Jong-tae, Cho Jong-tae, and Cho Jong-hee's disease, under the name of the first district association establishment promotion committee, Kim Jong-tae, Lee Jong-chul, Cho Jong-tae, and Cho Jong-hee, including Lee Jong-tae, were submitted to the defendant on August 10, 1996, respectively on the name of the second district association establishment promotion committee, and on August 10, 1996, the defendant submitted an application for the establishment of the association and the authorization of the project of the district concerned on August 10, 1996. At that time, they did not attach a written consent, but did not attach a written consent, and the ratio of the area on the attached written consent was 43.50% in the case of Zone 1, 2, and 43.50% in the case of Zone 1, the defendant did not obtain the consent of each landowner's agent's consent, and did not attach a written consent.

(2) After this, the above Cho Jong-soo et al. submitted an application for authorization to establish an association again to the Defendant on October 10, 1996 under the name of the association of Zone Two, but the ratio of landowners who did not submit the project plan and attached documents to the extent of 48.09%, and the Defendant returned the above application on the 22th of the same month, citing the reasons for failing to attach the project plan and failing to meet the requirements for consent.

(3) On October 9, 1996, the Plaintiff and the Selection Kim Tae-tae, Yang Jae-chul, Yang Jae-chul, Kim Yong-Nam, Ho-tae, and Han Byung-si requested the Defendant to extend the application period for authorization of the first district project implementation to the Defendant under the name of the cooperative in Zone 1, but the Defendant rejected the application period. The said Plaintiff and the appointee filed an application for authorization of the establishment of the association again with the Defendant on October 22, 1996, which was last October 10, 1996, the date of the public notice period, under the name of the cooperative in Zone 1, but the Defendant still failed to submit the project plan, and the ratio of land owners’ size under the consent rate is 53.65%, and thus the Defendant rejected the said application on October 28, 1996, on the ground that the project plan was expired, not attached, and failing to meet the requirements for consent.

D. Circumstances of the instant disposition

In addition, on February 27, 1997, when the intervenor applied for an order to implement the reorganization project of this case to the defendant on March 15, 1997, the defendant ordered the intervenor to implement the reorganization project of this case on March 15, 1997 pursuant to Article 7 (1) 1 of the Act. On September 1 of the same year and December 3 of the same year with respect to the intervenor's application for authorization to implement the Class 1 district project, the defendant approved the application on December 1 of the same year (hereinafter "the first and second disposition").

Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

A. Whether the action against the designated person’s injury or injury is legitimate

From among the reference materials submitted on October 27, 200, the following facts are examined: Gap evidence No. 41, evidence No. 71, evidence No. 20, 22, 26, Gap evidence No. 90-21, 23, 24, Gap evidence No. 91-1, 3, 4, 100, Gap evidence No. 104, and evidence No. 56, Gap evidence No. 99, Eul evidence No. 56, Eul evidence No. 104 were stated as the designated party to the lawsuit in this case; Eul evidence No. 41, No. 71, No. 71, No. 22, 26, and Gap evidence No. 90; Eul evidence No. 56, No. 104 were not stated as the designated party to the lawsuit in this case; Eul evidence No. 56, No. 99, No. 56, No. 196, and the defendant presented testimony of the defendant’s testimony and witness.

(b)whether the designated parties and the Plaintiff’s lawsuits are legitimate, except for the Appointed’s disease, premise, and stone;

(1) The lawsuit of this case brought by the designated parties, except for soldiers' disease, premise, and stone, and the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "designated parties"), is a form of seeking revocation of the disposition by a third party, who is not the other party to the disposition of this case. Thus, even if a third party is not the other party to the administrative disposition has a legal interest in seeking revocation of the administrative disposition, the standing to sue is recognized, and it does not include cases where there is a direct and specific benefit protected by the law based on the disposition, and it does not include cases where there is a direct and factual or economic interest (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1337 delivered on February 8, 200).

(2)First, with respect to the Act on the Grounds of Disposition of this case, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall execute the compartmentalization and rearrangement project within the urban planning zone (Article 6), and the Minister of Construction and Transportation may order the owner of the land to execute the compartmentalization and rearrangement project (Article 9 or 16 within the period designated under Article 10 (1) of the Act, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 6, if the owner of the land fails to make an application for the authorization under the provisions of Article 9 or 16 within the period designated under the same Article, or if the contents of the application are recognized to be illegal or unjust, he may order the owner of the land to implement the compartmentalization and rearrangement project (Article 7 (1) 1); if the owner of the land intends to implement the compartmentalization and rearrangement project, he may obtain the approval from the Do governor (Article 9); if the owner of the land, who is a planned project, within the period designated under the provisions of Article 9 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall establish and Transportation within the prescribed period of the land within 7.

(3)In accordance with the above legal provisions, owners of land in Zone 1 and Two (including owners and superficies under the above law) are individuals, either individually or jointly, and are the subjects of the reorganization project in the above application period designated and publicly notified by the defendant, and obtain authorization from the defendant by applying for authorization of the reorganization project in the above case. At least seven members of the partnership are the subjects of the reorganization project in this case, and the partnership is the subjects of the reorganization project in this case, and have the legal qualifications and rights to obtain authorization of the establishment of the association and the implementation of the reorganization project in this case from the defendant. Such qualifications and rights of the landowners or unions are non-existence of the rights and rights to obtain authorization of the reorganization project in this case under Article 32 of the Act of the Intervenor who is a local government. Thus, if owners of land have filed an application for authorization of the implementation of the reorganization project in this case, or a partnership consisting of at least seven landowners within the above application period for authorization period, there is a legal interest to seek revocation of the establishment and implementation of the reorganization project in this case.

(4) However, as seen above, the plaintiff, the Selection Kim Tae, and the Haspop did not own the ownership of the land in each of the instant districts, and there is no evidence to prove that they have superficies on the land in each of the instant districts, and there is no evidence to prove that the remaining designated parties, including them have applied for the authorization of the instant reorganization project within October 10, 1996, which is the period designated and publicly notified by the defendant, solely or jointly for the implementation of the instant reorganization project as the land owner. Thus, they cannot be deemed to have a legal interest in seeking the cancellation of each of the instant dispositions as an individual owner under Article 9 of the Act. (b) On the other hand, the first and second district associations consisting of the designated parties, namely, the first and second district associations, merely have a legal interest in seeking the cancellation of each of the instant dispositions, but merely have the remainder of the designated parties except for the amount of money, they merely have a direct and indirect interest in the factual interest in the instant districts, which may not directly or indirectly be subject to the revocation of each of the instant dispositions.

(5)Therefore, since the remaining designated parties do not have standing to sue revocation of each of the dispositions of this case, they will be deemed unlawful without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the lawsuits of the plaintiff and the designated parties are dismissed. The judgment of the court below is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and all of the appeals of this case against the designated parties are dismissed. Since the plaintiff's appeal of this case under the name of the designated parties without authority to appoint them from the above designated parties, Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal of this case by the designated parties, and the expenses incurred by the above designated parties' appeal shall be borne independently by the designated parties. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Judges Jeong-ju (Presiding Judge) Kim Dong-dong Jin-hun