[1] The meaning of "interest protected by law" as a requirement for a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, to seek revocation of the administrative disposition or confirmation of invalidity thereof, and the case where the existing business entity has standing to sue to seek revocation of the beneficial administrative disposition, such as a license, authorization, permission, etc.

[2] Whether an existing business entity is eligible to seek revocation of the designation of a new retailer as a new retailer as a benefit legally protected for the benefit of an existing business entity's new retailer designated and operated as a general tobacco retailer (negative)

[1] Articles 12 and 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 1 and 16 (4) of the former Tobacco Business Act (amended by Act No. 8518 of July 19, 2007); Articles 7 (1) [Attachment 2] and 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the Tobacco Business Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Du6716 Decided July 28, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1540) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Du23811 Decided March 27, 2008

Plaintiff (Law Firm Law, Attorneys Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Bupyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Intervenor (Attorney Park Chang-chul, Counsel for the intervenor-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu14840 decided Dec. 6, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Even if a third party is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, if the legal interest protected by the administrative disposition is infringed by the law due to the administrative disposition, he/she shall be entitled to be judged by the legitimacy thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation or nullity of the administrative disposition, and the term "legal interest" refers to a case where there is individual, direct, and specific interest protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations. Generally, in cases where the law which is the basis of the beneficial administrative disposition such as a license, authorization, permission, etc. generally aims at preventing unreasonable management due to excessive competition among the relevant enterprisers, it is for the purpose of preventing such unreasonable management due to excessive competition among the relevant enterprisers, the existing enterpriser who is conducting a business after receiving the same kind of beneficial administrative disposition such as a license, authorization, permission, etc. for another enterpriser is not the counter-party to the administrative disposition such as a license, authorization, permission, etc. which was made against the relevant competitive businessman (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du6716, Jul. 28, 2006).

According to the former Tobacco Business Act (amended by Act No. 8518 of July 19, 2007) and the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule thereof, tobacco retailers are divided into general retailers and non-retails. Among general retailers, 50 meters in the Gun office, Eup/Myeon office, or Dong area, and 100 meters or more in the other areas, there is a certain distance restriction between general retailers' business offices. This is to achieve the public interest of promoting the sound development of the tobacco industry as well as contributing to the national economy through the establishment of the structure of tobacco distribution, and to protect the general retailers' business interests from unreasonable competition. Thus, the interests of the existing retailers and new retailers who are designated as general retailers and those of the existing retailers and those of the general retailers and those of the general retailers and those of the new retailers are not restricted from the public interest of the new retailers and those of the new retailers and those of the general retailers and those of the new retailers are not restricted from the public interest of the general retailers and those of the new retailers and those of the new retailers.

In the same purport, the court below's dismissal of the lawsuit by the plaintiff, who is an existing tobacco retailer, has no standing to sue to seek revocation of the designation of a new tobacco retailer, is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature of the designation of tobacco retailer or legal interests protected, as

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.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)