Limited Partnership Corporation (Attorney Kim - employed, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Director of the Supo Regional Shipping Bureau (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Park Jong-young (Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 1, 1969

On October 23, 1968, the license of the vessel operation business issued by the defendant as a sub-paragraph 43 on October 23, 1968 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant and his/her assistant.

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) Determination on this safety defense

In light of the nature of administrative litigation under the democracy, it is reasonable to allow a judicial remedy by securing the possibility of judicial review as long as there is a substantial benefit in denying the validity of an administrative disposition in a specific case (interest worthy of legal protection) in light of the nature of administrative litigation, even though there is no infringement of the right by the license disposition of the vessel operation business, such as the order against the supplementary intervenor, and thus, even if there is a substantial damage, the defendant and the supplementary intervenor are not entitled to institute an administrative litigation to seek the revocation thereof. In this case, according to the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the plaintiff is recognized as having a benefit of legal protection (including not only the legal interest but also the factual interest) in filing a lawsuit against the supplementary intervenor, so the defendant and the supplementary intervenor's defense cannot be accepted.

(2) Judgment on the merits

On October 8, 1968, the Defendant revoked the license for the operation of the vessel on the light of the passenger vessel due to a regular port between YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Since the Defendant’s above disposition of vessel operation under the 6th 5th 1st 6th 1st 6th 1st 6th 6th 1st 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1966th 198. 19

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim seeking the cancellation of the illegal disposition is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 94 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

July 15, 1969

Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Judge)