(a) Whether additional clauses may be attached to the reclamation license;

B. The meaning of interested parties under Article 10(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act

C. The meaning of interest in the outcome of a lawsuit as an element for participation in a lawsuit

1. In the discretionary administrative act other than the binding administrative act such as the public water reclamation license, even if there are no legal grounds, whether to set additional clauses or not belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency in question.

2. Interested parties referred to in Article 10(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act (Ordinance No. 570 of March 27, 1962) (Article 11(1) of the current Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act) are sufficient if they have a de facto or economic interest in the relevant father-general. As such, the tax payer who was employed in reclamation falls under the above interested parties.

3. The term "interest in the result of a lawsuit" as a requirement for participation refers to a legal interest, and this refers to a case in which res judicata or executory power of a judgment on the lawsuit is naturally granted, or a case in which the legal status of a person who intends to participate in the lawsuit is determined, at least on the premise that the judgment does not directly affect the effect

Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, Article 65 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 63Du12 Decided September 22, 1964

Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Governor of Gyeonggi-do

Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s name

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu356 delivered on February 13, 1979

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

The Intervenor’s Intervenor’s motion to intervene is dismissed.

Costs of litigation incurred by an application for intervention shall be borne by the applicant.

1. First, we examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant issued a 1963.9.11 on Sep. 1, 1963, which did not constitute an unlawful reclamation permit under the provisions of the above 4-mentioned 10-year Enforcement Decree, or a 1-year-old reclamation permit under the provisions of the above 1-year-old public waters reclamation law. According to the above 1-6-year-old reclamation permit's 1-year-old reclamation permit's 6-year-old reclamation permit's 1-year-old reclamation permit's 6-year-old reclamation permit's 1-6-year-old reclamation permit's 1-year-old reclamation permit's 1-year-old reclamation permit's 1-6-year-old reclamation permit's 1-year-old reclamation permit's 1-6-year-old reclamation permit's 14-year-old reclamation permit's 17-year-old reclamation permit's reclamation permit's 1-6-year reclamation permit's reclamation permit's.

However, in general, it is clear that there is a ground under the above laws that can be attached to the license for reclamation of public waters as of February 13, 1970, and even if there is no ground under the law in discretionary administrative action, whether it should be attached to the license belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency concerned. In addition, according to Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act (Enforcement Decree No. 570 of March 27, 1962), the licensing authority may attach conditions as deemed necessary for the public interest or the protection of interested parties in the license in case of reclamation of public waters. Thus, it is clear that there is a ground under the above laws that can be attached to the license for reclamation of public waters as of February 13, 1970, and the interested parties under the above provision (the provision of Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, which was enforced on April 2, 1970 at the time of the original adjudication).

Meanwhile, Article 14 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act provides that a reclamation licensee of public waters acquires the ownership of the reclaimed land on the date of the authorization of reclamation completion, and the Section 14 of the Addenda of this case is interpreted to the purport that the Plaintiff requires in advance a transfer contract with the purport of transferring the ownership of the reclaimed land to the Young-gu residents by taking land in accordance with the father's section at the time of the reclamation license where the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the reclaimed land after obtaining the authorization of reclamation completion. Therefore, the lower court, despite the fact that the Plaintiff should have made a decision on whether the land was implemented in accordance with the purport of the sub-section of this case, shall be deemed to have been attached without any basis to the sub-section of this case, and it shall not be deemed that the sub-section of this case does not fall under the interested parties under Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, and ultimately, it shall be deemed that the sub-section of this case was null and void.

There is a good reason to point out this point.

2. Next, the plaintiff raised an objection against the motion for intervention in the trial of the defendant joining the defendant, and therefore, we examine the legality of the motion for intervention in the trial of the defendant joining the defendant.

In order to assist one of the parties to a lawsuit, the term "interest" in this context refers to a person who has an interest in the result of the lawsuit, not an economic or emotional interest but a legal interest. Legal interest in the case refers to a case in which res judicata effect or executory power of the judgment in question is naturally obtained, or the judgment does not directly affect the effect of the judgment in question, and at least a case in which the legal status of a person who seeks to participate in the lawsuit is determined based on the premise of the judgment. In this case, according to the reasons for applying for participation by the Intervenor, the supplementary intervenor shall be deemed to have an interest in the result of the lawsuit at least 00,000, 00, 00, 00, 000, 00, 000, 00, 00, 00, 00, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,00).

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is with merit, and therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded. The defendant's motion to intervene in the case of this case is unlawful, and thus, the defendant's motion to intervene in the case of this case shall be dismissed. The litigation costs arising from the above motion shall be borne by the defendant.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)