Cases where there is no interest in the action

The main purpose of the Marine Transportation Business Act is to maintain the order of marine transportation and promote the sound development of marine transportation business, and it is not to protect the public welfare. Therefore, even if the existing operators who already obtained a license for the operation of a ship already compete with others and receive disadvantages from the competitors, it does not infringe upon the rights or legal interests of a specific individual, and thus, there is no benefit of protecting the rights to seek a new cancellation or change of a license against the administrative agency.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff School Foundation

Director General of the Military Services and Fisheries Bureau

This case shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's decision that the defendant's vessel operation license disposition against the non-party 1 on December 6, 1967 is revoked.

On January 10, 1967, the plaintiff, after obtaining a two-way vessel operation business license from the defendant, operates the 2 Geum River (the 2 Geum River in the register of passengers, etc.). On December 6, 1967, the defendant unfairly competes with the plaintiff's Paragraph 1 Item (the 1 Item) of the plaintiff on December 6, 1967 that it infringes the plaintiff's rights and interests, and thus, it is unlawful that the plaintiff's disposition is revoked. Thus, the main purpose of the maritime transport business law enacted is to maintain the order of marine transportation, to promote the sound development of marine transport business, and to protect the public welfare (the convenience of passengers, etc. and the profits of the business owner are only the anti-private interest). Thus, the defendant's claim that the existing operator already obtained a vessel operation license, despite the existence of a new vessel operation business license, constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's rights and interests, and thus, it does not constitute a direct and indirect interest of the existing passenger, etc., which may result in a new competition.

Therefore, even if a business operator, etc., who is merely a mere disadvantage in such a case, files an appeal seeking cancellation or change of the disposition against the administrative agency, this is no legal interest, and therefore there is no interest in protecting the rights of the plaintiff under the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, according to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 2 (license) and the plaintiff's certificate of qualification bound by the records, the plaintiff is an educational foundation established for the purpose of providing secondary education based on the fundamental ideology of education in the Republic of Korea. Since it is obvious that the plaintiff is not the plaintiff but the non-party 2 corporation, the plaintiff is not the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to receive the above vessel operation license. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to receive the above vessel operation license.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim of principal lawsuit is obvious that it is improper to satisfy the requirements of lawsuit, it shall be dismissed. It is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Yong-dae (Presiding Judge)