1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court which accepted the judgment of the court of first instance is based on the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part 4, 15 to 20, 5, 15) is advanced as follows. The 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance is "H hospital"; the 12th of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the plaintiff"; the 14th of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the plaintiff"; and the 14th of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the operation only with mountain village" as "the operation only with mountain village women". Thus, it is identical to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, so it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

B. Where several persons who have applied for the beneficial administrative disposition such as authorization and permission are bound to result in the disposition of permission, etc. against one party in competition with the other party, a person who did not receive the disposition of permission, etc. has standing to seek revocation of the pertinent disposition even though he/she is not the other party to the disposition of permission, etc. taken against the minor party

However, there is no legitimate interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition where the plaintiff's application is excluded from the beginning due to a clear legal disorder.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du8359, Dec. 10, 2009). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the Health Center, the Plaintiff, D Hospital, and H Hospital are competing with each other regarding the selection of persons eligible for support for the instant project.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff’s application falls under the case where the possibility of accepting the application is excluded from the beginning due to the apparent legal disability.

Therefore, even if the other party to the disposition of this case is not the other party to the disposition of this case, the plaintiff has standing to seek

Ultimately, the defendant's defense of the principal safety cannot be accepted.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is with the same conclusion.