[1] The case where a third party can seek the revocation of an administrative disposition

[2] Whether a bus transport association is a third party who has an interest in claiming revocation of a village bus route approval disposition (negative)

[1] Even if a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition directly has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the administrative disposition, the standing to sue is recognized, and 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, and it does not include indirect or factual or economic interest.

[2] Even if a bus transport business association, which was not established by a corporation established by a bus transport business operator for the purpose of pursuing common interests pursuant to Article 64 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, suffered disadvantage due to the approval of a village bus route, it shall not be deemed that there is a direct and specific legal interest seeking the revocation of the approval of a route.

[1] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 6 (1) 1 and 64 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu14148 delivered on October 17, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3544), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1464 delivered on December 26, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 599), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3630 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2394)

Incheon Metropolitan City Bus Transport Business Association (Attorney Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City

Supreme Court Decision 97Nu12730 Delivered on October 28, 1997

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition of approval of village bus routes on July 9, 1996 for the reduction of the number of non-party limited partnership companies (number 3) and Cheong School Traffic Co., Ltd. (number 10) shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the instant disposition

On July 9, 1996, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant rendered a disposition to authorize the village bus routes operating the 3-dong offices in drawing the drawing and the east Station with respect to the reduction of the transport by the non-party limited partnership company on July 9, 1996, and the village bus routes operating the Cheongcheon Station with respect to the transport by the non-party limited partnership company (hereinafter the instant disposition).

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the approval of the above village bus route does not go through the procedures for hearing the opinions of the relevant bus transport business operators under Article 9 of the Operational Guidelines for the limited operation of the bus transport business applicable to the approval of the village bus route, and that the above village bus operation route overlaps with the regular bus route in substantial sections, so that the village bus operation business takes charge of the function of supporting and connecting the urban railroad or general bus transport business, Article 3 of the Operational Guidelines, and the starting point and ending point of the village bus operation system shall be the location of the notified village or remote village, apartment complex, industrial complex, school, school, or religious organization which is the nearest railroad station, urban railroad station, or general bus stop which is close to the known point and ending point of the operation of the regular bus route, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as it is unlawful in violation of the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the Operational Guidelines, and the defendant is not only lawful in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, but also because the plaintiff does not have any interested parties.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. Even if a third party who is not the direct counter party to an administrative disposition has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the administrative disposition, standing to sue shall be recognized. However, legal interest refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the pertinent disposition, and it does not include indirect or factual or economic interest (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu3630, Jun. 28, 1996; 95Nu14664, Dec. 26, 1995).

B. However, Article 6 (1) 1 of the Automobile Transport Business Act provides that "the business plan concerned shall meet the transport demand and supply of transport capacity of the route or business area", and the purpose of the above provision is to establish order on the automobile transport business, to promote public welfare by comprehensively developing automobile transport, and to prevent in advance any unreasonable management arising from competition between business operators, and to prevent in advance any unreasonable management arising from competition between the existing bus transport business operators. Therefore, the existing bus transport business operator has a legal interest in seeking revocation against the disposition of approval for the village bus route in which the authorized route competes (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu985 delivered on September 22, 1987). However, even if a corporation established by bus transport business operators to promote the sound development of bus transport business and the common interest of bus transport business operators pursuant to Article 64 of the Automobile Transport Business Act has suffered disadvantage due to the approval for the village bus route, it cannot be deemed that there is no direct and specific legal interest in the plaintiff's association and the association immediately seeking revocation of such disposition.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff union does not have standing to sue the revocation of the disposition of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful, and the lawsuit costs are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yu Ho (Presiding Judge) Lee Ho-hunon