[1] The meaning of legal interest as a requirement for a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, to seek the revocation of an administrative disposition

[2] Whether an insured insurer against a sunken vessel has legal interest in seeking cancellation of the ruling of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal (negative)

[1] A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, may seek the revocation of the administrative disposition in case where there is a legal interest to seek the revocation thereof, but in this case, a legal interest refers to a specific interest that is directly protected by a law based on the pertinent disposition, so in case where a third party has an indirect and de facto economic interest, no standing to seek the revocation

[2] Although Articles 27(1) and 39-2 of the Act on the Investigation and Inquiry of Marine Accidents recognize the right to appoint inquiry counsel and the right to file an application for adjudication on the non-prosecution disposition of the investigator with the interested parties in the marine accident, the interested parties in the marine accident are not provided for in the provisions that they may file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court against the adjudication of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal, and since the lawsuit against the adjudication of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal provided in Article 74(1) of the same Act has the nature of a lawsuit against cancellation of administrative disposition, standing to sue is required under Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act to file a lawsuit against the adjudication of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal. An insurance company of a sunken ship is not a person involved in the marine accident under subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the same Act, but not a person involved in the marine accident, but it is difficult to see that an insurance company obtains indirect or factual, or economic benefits from cancellation of the adjudication, and it is not appropriate for the plaintiff.

[1] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 2 subparag. 3, 27(1), 39-2 and 74(1) of the Act on the Investigation and Inquiry of Marine Accidents, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3630 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2394), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14906 delivered on April 25, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1653), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu106 delivered on June 11, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1427), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1006 delivered on July 23, 199 (Gong199Ha, 179Ha, 1796), Supreme Court Decision 9Du6026 delivered on October 12, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2345), Supreme Court Decision 200Nu206375 delivered on December 26, 2005 (Gong2075, Dec. 25, 2005)

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Dong Dong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

President of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal

June 28, 2002

The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of marine accidents and the details of the ruling in this case;

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, it was found that the non-party 1 et al., the gross tonnage of which is 351.68t, 351.68t, Hanyang LLC, Inc. (hereinafter "the vessel of this case"), on July 29, 1998, 09:20 (on the spot time; hereinafter the same shall apply) no later than 19:30,000 South, Seoyang-west Islands Islands, 194 Emblurgs (on the 49°05,000, around 00, around 060 00, and 00 00 seconds), the vessel of this case was deprived of 11:0,000, and the vessel of this case due to non-party 1 et al.'s negligence on the part of the captain's vessel of this case for the reason that the vessel of this case was deprived of 30,000,000.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the above non-party 1, the non-party 3, and the non-party 2, who was ordered by the non-party 4 chief, enter the ship of this case as the ship of this case and opened a string tons valve intentionally so that sea water flows into the engine room. Thus, the defendant did not take any disciplinary measure against the Bosung Refriger Co., Ltd. or the non-party 4, and even if the defendant acknowledged the indirect facts about the nine types of the sinking of the ship of this case, it is unlawful to acknowledge the cause of the sinking of the ship of this case without recognizing the cause of the sinking as the intentional sinking of the ship of this case by requiring the "proof of proof to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt" rather than the "provoking evidence" in the marine accident inquiry. Thus, it is unlawful to acknowledge the cause of the sinking of the ship of this case as the insurance company insured against of this case.

3. Determination

Therefore, first, we examine whether the plaintiff is standing to sue to revoke the ruling of this case.

Article 27(1) and Article 39-2 of the Act on the Investigation and Inquiry of Marine Accidents (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") recognize the right to appoint inquiry counsel and the right to apply for an inquiry concerning the non-influence of an investigator to interested parties in a marine accident, but there is no provision that interested parties in a marine accident may file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court regarding the adjudication of the Korean Maritime Safety

In addition, since the lawsuit against the ruling of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal under Article 74 (1) of the Act has the nature of the lawsuit against the cancellation of an administrative disposition, in order to file a lawsuit against the ruling of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal, standing to sue under Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act shall be required, and even a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition may seek cancellation of the disposition if there is a legal interest to seek cancellation of the administrative disposition, but in this case, legal interest refers to a specific interest directly protected by the relevant law based on the relevant disposition, in case where a third party has an indirect and de facto economic interest, there is no standing to sue to seek cancellation of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu1337, Feb. 8, 200; 98Du7923, Apr. 25, 200, etc.).

In this case, the Plaintiff is not a person involved in a marine accident under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act, but merely is an insurance company involved in the instant vessel. Thus, the benefits that the Plaintiff would gain by the cancellation of the instant adjudication are merely factual, factual, and economic interests, and it is difficult to view that it constitutes specific interests that are directly protected by the law based on the instant adjudication.

Therefore, since it cannot be deemed that there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of the adjudication of this case to the Plaintiff, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is instituted by a person without standing

In addition, unlike the ruling of disciplinary action or recommendation against a person involved in a marine accident, the ruling of causes causes causes for a marine accident cannot be subject to revocation litigation because it does not themselves constitute an administrative disposition with the effect of forming or confirming the rights and obligations of the people (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do16, Jun. 9, 200). The part seeking revocation of causes for causes of a marine accident among the rulings in this case is unlawful in this regard.)

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)