(a) Whether a third party, other than the other party to an administrative disposition, files an administrative litigation;

(b) No principle of charging a lawsuit in filing an administrative litigation against a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition;

C. Whether the previous Supreme Court decision on the latter part of Article 2(1) proviso of the Administrative Litigation Act includes a case where a third party in an administrative disposition files a lawsuit

(a) If a third party, other than the other party to an administrative disposition, has infringed on the legal interest protected by the administrative disposition, a legal qualification to obtain the decision on the propriety thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation or change of the disposition.

B. A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, is not a party to an administrative disposition within the exclusion period stipulated in Article 3(1) of the Seafarers Act, barring any special circumstance that it is possible to file a lawsuit within the exclusion period, the third party may directly institute an administrative litigation without going through the source procedure, on the ground that it falls under a case where there is a justifiable reason not to go through the adjudication of the source of the lawsuit stipulated in the latter part of Article

C. The purport of the latter part of the proviso of Article 2(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act is to refer to a case where a lawsuit is filed without waiting the judgment after filing a lawsuit, but it does not mean a case where a lawsuit can be filed directly without filing a lawsuit. (Supreme Court Decision 4294Nu85 Decided February 15, 1962: 62Nu31 Decided June 28, 1962: 69Nu12 Decided April 29: 78Nu184 Decided November 14, 1978 and 81Nu223 Decided January 26, 1982, etc.) is based on the premise that the lawsuit can be filed within the original period, such as the other party to the administrative disposition, and it is not based on the premise that the lawsuit cannot be filed within the above period is a third party.

(a) Article 1(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

Supreme Court Decision 73Nu96,97 Decided May 13, 1975

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu205 delivered on January 18, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the records, as of March 30, 1982, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the defendant joining the defendant on L.P.G. (L.G.) in Daegu-gu ( Address omitted). However, it is clear that the defendant's above permission disposition as residents adjacent to the above installation place falls short of the criteria for installation permission for public safety as stipulated under the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the defendant's illegal disposition, which did not violate the duty to prevent harm caused by environmental pollution as required by the Environmental Preservation Act, and the plaintiff's legal interest was infringed, and the lawsuit of this case was filed within 1 month from July 5, 1982, and the lawsuit of this case was filed.

However, according to Article 3(1) of the Sub-Appellant Act, the court below rejected the lawsuit on the ground that even if the plaintiffs knew that the permission of this case was issued and filed within one month from July 5, 1982, it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed within three months from March 30 to March 30, 1982, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case cannot be corrected because it was unlawful as it did not go through legitimate procedure, and thus, it cannot be corrected.

2. Where a third party, other than the other party to an administrative disposition, has infringed on a legal interest protected by the law due to the disposition, an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation or change of the disposition, and a party member has a legal qualification to obtain a decision on the propriety of the administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 73Nu96, 97, May 13, 1975).

However, the latter part of Article 3(1) of the Costs of Lawsuit Act provides that a plaintiff shall file a lawsuit within three months from the date of the administrative disposition with respect to the plaintiff, which is the procedure of the prior trial of the administrative litigation, shall be the exclusion period of the lawsuit. Since the other party's administrative disposition, such as the permission for installing the charging station in this case, becomes effective upon notification to the other party, the other party can immediately be informed of such disposition by the notification, so it is possible for the other party to file a lawsuit within the exclusion period prescribed by the Costs of Lawsuit Act, but it is impossible for a third party, who is not the other party to whom the notification was given, to immediately know of such administrative disposition, barring any special circumstance, to file a lawsuit within three months from the date of the administrative disposition.

Nevertheless, if a third party in such case does not file a lawsuit within the exclusion period of three months like the other party in the administrative disposition, so long as the disposition is not in dispute with the administrative litigation, it is very unreasonable, and as seen above, it is not possible to receive the remedy for infringement of rights by preventing the length of the lawsuit, as well as by recognizing the status of a lawsuit to dispute the administrative disposition against the third party.

Therefore, even if a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, did not institute a lawsuit within the exclusion period under Article 3 (1) of the source Act, the third party, barring special circumstances that it is possible to institute a lawsuit within the exclusion period, shall be deemed as a case where there is a justifiable reason not to do so through the judgment of the source of lawsuit under the latter part of Article 2 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and shall be deemed as a direct administrative litigation without going through

In the latter part of the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a party member expressed that "if a serious damage is likely to occur due to the light of the judgment of ..... committee member, it may bring a lawsuit without warning the judgment of ... committee member," that "if a lawsuit is brought without waiting for the judgment of ... committee member, it shall not refer to the case in which a party member can bring a lawsuit directly without waiting for the judgment of ... committee member, but it shall not refer to the case in which a party member can bring a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4294Nu85, Feb. 15, 1962; 62Nu31, Jun. 28, 1962; 69Nu12, Apr. 29; 78Nu184, Nov. 14, 1978; 81Nu223, Nov. 26, 1982).

4. Ultimately, in this case, the Plaintiff constitutes a case where there exists a justifiable reason not to go through the original procedure as stipulated in the latter part of Article 2(1) proviso of the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, the lower court’s determination that the instant lawsuit was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff did not go through the original procedure was erroneous, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the precedent of the original procedure as stipulated in the proviso of Article 2(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

The court below should first determine the eligibility of the plaintiffs by examining the defect in the permission disposition of this case asserted by the plaintiff, which infringes on the legal interest of the third party, other than the other party to the disposition, and if the eligibility of the plaintiff is recognized in this respect, the decision should be made on the merits.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)

* Omission of the list of selected persons