A. The scope of "legal interest" sought by a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, for the revocation of an administrative disposition;

(b) The case holding that there is no benefit in seeking the revocation of the disposition of imposition of the penalty surcharge against the relevant driver, in case where the disposition of imposition of the penalty surcharge is imposed on the transportation company belonging to him on the ground

A. A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, should be recognized as standing to sue in the event of a legal interest in seeking revocation of the administrative disposition. However, the legal interest here refers to cases where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the relevant disposition, but it does not include cases where it is merely an indirect or factual interest.

B. In the conclusion of the wage agreement between the labor and management of the company, if a penalty surcharge is imposed on the company due to a concurrent act of driving technicians, etc., the company shall deduct the amount equivalent to the bonus from the company at the time of the payment of the bonus to the driver in question, thereby passing the burden of the penalty surcharge to the driver in question. Accordingly, even if the bonus payment of the driver in question was limited due to the disposition of imposition of the penalty surcharge imposed on the company on the ground of the joint act of driving technicians, the pertinent driver who is not the party to the disposition of imposition of the penalty surcharge cannot be deemed to have

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu18763 delivered on November 17, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the briefs submitted with an excessive period).

Even a third party, who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, has a legal interest in seeking revocation of the administrative disposition, standing to sue is recognized. However, legal interest here refers to cases where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the relevant disposition, but it does not include cases where there is an indirect or factual interest in the company, or only is an economic interest. As such, as in the theory of lawsuit, when a penalty surcharge is imposed on the company due to the joint participation of a driver in a wage agreement between the labor and management of the non-party company, the burden of the penalty surcharge shall be deducted from the amount of the penalty surcharge at the time of the payment of the bonus to the driver. Accordingly, even if the payment of the penalty surcharge was limited by the disposition of this case against the non-party company by the defendant on the ground of the plaintiff's joint participation, the plaintiff who is not the direct party to the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to have a direct and concrete interest in seeking revocation of the disposition. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)