In a case where the Minister of Environment announced the modification and supplementation of ecological and natural maps by changing an area designated as Class 1 to Grade 2 or 3, and neighboring residents Gap filed a claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition for change of ecological and natural maps, the case holding that Gap has no standing to seek confirmation of invalidity.

In a case where the Minister of Environment announced the modification and supplementation of the ecological and natural map of the contents that change the area designated as Class 1 to Grade 2 or 3, and neighboring residents Gap filed a claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition for change of ecological and natural map, the case affirming the judgment below holding that in accordance with Article 34(1) of the former Natural Environment Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 10977, Jul. 28, 201) and Article 27(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree thereof, which serve as the basis for the preparation and change of ecological and natural map, the ecological and natural map is merely for the systematic conservation and management of the natural environment by using the formulation and implementation of a land use and development plan, and it is apparent that the ecological and natural map is not for the protection of the living interests of neighboring residents of Grade 1 zone, and it is merely merely for the benefit of neighboring residents of Grade 1 zone to achieve the public interest of environmental protection.

Article 34(1) of the former Natural Environment Conservation Act (Amended by Act No. 10977, Jul. 28, 201); Article 27(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Natural Environment Conservation Act; Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The Minister of Environment and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu10647 decided October 28, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

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, he/she is entitled to obtain the decision of propriety thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the invalidity confirmation of the administrative disposition. However, the legal interest refers to a case where there is individual, direct, and specific interest protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations. Thus, if a general, indirect, and abstract interest common to the general public exists as a result of the protection of public interest (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006, etc.).

citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the lower court determined that, based on Article 34(1) of the former Natural Environment Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 10977, Jul. 28, 201) and Article 27(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree thereof, the ecological and natural map only aims to systematically preserve and manage the natural environment by utilizing the formulation or implementation of a land use and development plan, and it is apparent that the ecological and natural map is not intended to protect the interests of the neighboring residents of the first-class zone directly and specifically, and that the interests of the neighboring residents of the first-class zone are merely the interests of the public interest of environmental protection, and thus, the Plaintiff, a neighboring resident of the first-class zone, cannot seek nullification of the decision that has changed the ecological and natural map of the instant area from Grade 1 to Grade 2, and some parts of the ecological and natural map to Grade 3.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to standing to sue.

Of the lower judgment, the part on Defendant Central Administrative Appeals Commission is not indicated in the petition of appeal or appellate brief.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)