[1] Whether there is a legal interest in seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition whose effective period has expired (affirmative with qualification)

[2] Where a housing construction business operator receives a disposition of business suspension, whether it constitutes a legal interest seeking revocation of the disposition of business suspension for which the validity period has expired (negative)

[1] A legal interest in an appeal suit refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by a law based on the pertinent disposition, and a case where there is only a factual or economic interest. This does not constitute a case where the effective period of an administrative disposition is determined by a law or a disposition itself, and thus, it becomes null and void after the lapse of that period, and there is no legal interest seeking cancellation of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that a disposition is in violation of a certain legal interest due to the remaining shape after the lapse

[2] Even though a housing construction business operator subject to a disposition of suspension of business pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Rules on Housing Supply is limited to the prior recruitment of occupants if the period of recruitment of occupants does not reach a certain construction process for two years after the period of suspension of business, it is merely a failure to receive the sales price in advance due to a delay in the recruitment period of occupants, and it does not directly impose any legal restrictions on the contents and scope of the housing supply business conducted by the relevant housing construction business operator, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a legal interest seeking the revocation thereof.

[1] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 7 (2) of the Rules on Housing Supply

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu179 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1526), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3625 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 2419), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4087 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2824), Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu14148 delivered on October 17, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 354) (Gong195Ha, 354), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6233 delivered on February 14, 197 (Gong197, 794)

Taesan Co., Ltd. (Law Office of Busan, Law Office, Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorneys Lee Jin-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10853 Delivered on November 14, 1995

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu36703 delivered on May 7, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the period are examined as well.

In an appeal litigation, a legal interest in a lawsuit refers to a case where there is a direct and concrete interest protected by a law based on the pertinent disposition, and it does not constitute a case where there is an indirect or factual or economic interest. In a case where the effective period of an administrative disposition is determined by the law or a disposition itself, it is null and void after the lapse of such period. Thus, there is no legal interest in seeking cancellation of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that a disposition is in violation of any legal interest due to the remaining external form after the lapse of such period (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu4087 delivered on July 14, 1995, 94Nu14148 delivered on October 17, 1995, etc.).

In the same purport, the court below determined that the disposition of this case is invalid after the lapse of the effective period on September 10, 1995, and it is just to determine that there is no legal interest to seek the revocation thereof, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, although the housing construction business operator subject to the disposition of suspension of business pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Rules on Housing Supply is limited to the prior recruitment of occupants if it does not reach a certain construction process for two years after the period of suspension of business, but it merely prevents the tenant from receiving the advance payment due to delay of the recruitment period, and it does not directly impose any legal restrictions on the contents and scope of the housing supply business conducted by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)