2010lu8 Suspension of Execution

Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor

A litigation performer Lee Jae-won

Law Firm Gyeong-Gyeong (Attorney Choi Woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

Law Firm Daegu General Law Office (Attorney Park Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Intervenor joining the Intervenor

1. S.C.;

Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central Government 5 Ghana 537

Number of master directors

2. Large forest industry stock company;

Seoul Jongno-gu 146 - 12

Representative Director Kim Jong-soo

3. Daegu Urban Gas Stock Company;

Daegu Central District Court 2268 - 1

Joint Representative Director Kim Young-hun, Lee Jong-hoon

4. Large-scale Holdings Company;

Daegu Central District Court 2268 - 1

Joint Representative Director, Gim Young, Lee Jong-hoon

5.Trification Industry Co., Ltd.

Daegu hydrosung-dong 847-2

For the Representative Director:

Intervenor’s Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Attorney Kim Jin-hun, and Park Jong-chul

1. Sco Co., Ltd.;

Mono-dong 1, South-gu Mono-dong 1

Terms of representative director;

2. Bosco&A Co., Ltd.;

Seoul Gangnam-gu 892 Maco Center

The representative director Lee Jae-chul

3. Construction of sccos;

568, Dong-dong 568 - 1

Seoul, Gangnam-gu 826 - 20 large social gathering building at the place of delivery

Representation of representative director;

4. Korea District Heating Corporation.

Sungnam-si Subdivision-dong 186

The date of the representative's regular election;

5. Korea district heating technology stock company;

- 266, - 1 stststrop building in Sung-nam City, 6 floors.

A dual representative director;

6. Clerks Co., Ltd.;

Daegu Suwon-dong 2 Dongdong 1

Representative Director's Supervisory Board

Claimant Law Firm Squa (Attorney Hho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Hwang Young-young

Daegu District Court Order 201089 Dated April 16, 2010

May 24, 2010

1. The decision of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The petitioner’s rejection of the instant application.

3. The costs of the petition shall be borne by all the applicants in the first and second instances.

1. Purport of request;

on March 11, 2010, the respondent is the Daegu Metropolitan City Waste Energy Co., Ltd. (RF) City for the applicants.

The revocation of qualifications in the first stage of a private investment project shall be subject to the Daegu District Court 2010Guhap1028

The validity of a request for revocation of a pre-qualification review shall be suspended until the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

2. Purport of appeal;

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. In filing an application for suspension of the execution of an administrative disposition, there shall be a legal interest in seeking it. In this case, the legal interest refers to the damage caused or expanded by such administrative disposition is related to a direct and specific interest protected by the relevant law based on the relevant disposition, and it does not include cases where it is merely an indirect or factual or economic interest (see Supreme Court Order 200Da17, Oct. 10, 200).

2. Under the current law, the system to suspend the execution of an administrative disposition is merely to make the same state as that in which no such administrative disposition was taken, and it is not to make an active state such as ordering an administrative agency to take any measures (see Supreme Court Order 62Du9, Jun. 29, 1962).

Therefore, Article 26 (6) of the Administrative Litigation Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to Article 30 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act as to the binding force of the decision, and Article 30 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to Article 26 (6) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 30 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to the effect of the decision.), the validity of the rejection disposition does not nothing but apply to preventing damage to the applicant due to the rejection disposition (see Supreme Court Order 2006Da43, Oct. 15, 2007; Supreme Court Order 2006Da43, Oct. 15, 2007; Supreme Court Order 2005Hun-Ga43, Oct. 15, 2007; and Supreme Court Decision 2005.

4. The Supreme Court Order 2005Ma13 Dated January 17, 2005, Supreme Court Order 2004Ma48 Dated August 13, 2001, Supreme Court Order 2001Ma23 Dated August 13, 2001, Supreme Court Order 95Du26 Dated June 21, 1995, Supreme Court Order 92Du72 Dated February 10, 1993, Supreme Court Order 91Du47 Dated February 13, 1992, Supreme Court Order 91Du15 Dated May 2, 1991, etc.).

3. On March 11, 2010, the respondent's rejection of the first step prior qualification examination (PS) of the Daegu Metropolitan City Waste Energy Co., Ltd. facility (RDF) facility (PDF) for applicants is a disposition refusing to pass through the first step preliminary qualification examination (PS) of the above project's first step. Thus, even if the validity of the rejection disposition of this case is suspended, the effect of the applicants is that the applicants are qualified as the first step prior qualification examination or that the respondent is required to pass through the first step preliminary qualification examination, and the respondent is not obliged to go through the first step prior to the filing of the rejection disposition of this case. However, the issue of whether the applicants are recognized as the persons passing the first step prior to the filing of the application of this case is left the first step prior to the filing of the rejection disposition of this case, and thus, the benefits derived from the suspension of the execution of this case can not be viewed as a legal interest of 100.17.

In addition, the "irreparable damage" claimed by the applicants seeking suspension of the execution of the instant refusal disposition refers to the damage caused by failure to accept the application for the preliminary qualification examination of the first stage of the instant case. Therefore, in order to prevent the damage, the applicants must actively create the same state as being qualified as the first stage of the instant refusal disposition, and the fact that the effect of the instant refusal disposition is suspended and return to the state prior to the relevant disposition is not nothing more than anything else.

Therefore, the petitioner's application for the suspension of execution of this case is not helpful for preventing the damage of the applicant caused by the instant refusal disposition, and it is unlawful as there is no legal interest in seeking the suspension of its validity.

4. Therefore, the decision of the first instance court, which received an application for the suspension of execution of this case from the applicant, is unfair, and thus, the applicant is dismissed.

Appointment of the presiding judge;

Revision of Judges;

Judges Park Jong-ho