[1] Where a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, has standing to seek revocation of an administrative disposition

[2] The case holding that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of a disposition of appointment of a professor at a national university as an associate professor at the same department

[1] In order for a third party, who is not the direct counter party to an administrative disposition, to seek the cancellation or modification of the administrative disposition, there must be specific legal benefits to seek the cancellation or modification of the disposition, and in cases where it is merely an indirect or factual or economic interest, it is not allowed.

[2] The case holding that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of a disposition of appointment of a professor at a national university as an associate professor at the same department

[1] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Nu407 delivered on June 10, 1986 (Gong1986, 880), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1709 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1577), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu8139 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 240), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1454 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3538)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dom General Law Office, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

(Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu39637 delivered on July 14, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In order for a third party, who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, to seek the cancellation or change of the administrative disposition, there must be specific legal interests in seeking the cancellation or change of the disposition to the third party, and it is not allowed if it is merely an indirect or factual or an economic interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu407, Jun. 10, 1986; 93Nu8139, Jul. 27, 1993).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the lawsuit in this case by the defendant who newly appointed the non-party as an associate professor in the language department of the Seoul National University, on the ground that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a specific legal interest in seeking revocation on the ground that the plaintiff is a professor of the same department. Such decision of the court below is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing as pointed out in the arguments.

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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)