1. All appeals by the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are incidental to the participation.

1. The reasoning of the court with respect to this case is as follows: 2.B. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

In addition to the following changes, the above reasons are the same as the entry of paragraphs 1 and 2, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Even if a third party is not the other party to a judgment, if the interests protected by law are infringed by the pertinent administrative disposition, he/she is entitled to obtain the decision of legitimacy by filing a revocation suit.

(1) The term "legal interest" means a case where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected under the relevant laws and regulations or relevant laws and regulations.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du2175, Aug. 16, 2004). Article 29(3) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 11061, Sept. 16, 201; hereinafter the same) provides that “If a project proprietor is unable to undergo a pre-use inspection under paragraph (1) due to bankruptcy, etc., a person who has guaranteed the construction of the relevant house or a prospective occupant, etc. may undergo a pre-use inspection, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.”

The purpose of the above provision is to protect prospective occupants by allowing prospective occupants to undergo a pre-use inspection in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, since it is anticipated that prospective occupants will suffer damage because they could not move into if they are unable to obtain approval due to their bankruptcy, etc.

Therefore, since the benefits of prospective occupants under the above provision can be deemed as individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the former Housing Act related Acts and subordinate statutes, the prospective occupants have legal interests to seek revocation of the illegal rejection disposition by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu (hereinafter “person authorized to conduct the inspection”), barring any special circumstances.

However, the former Housing Act was conducted by the authority for usage inspection.