[1] The requirements for a third party's intervention under Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[2] Where a local government applied for a third party intervention in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the name, decision, etc. of the newly established harbor, the case holding that the said application is unlawful on the grounds that there is no legal interest infringed upon by the outcome of the lawsuit

[3] The case holding that the determination of the name of a harbor by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries is not an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, since it does not directly cause legal changes in the rights and duties of

[1] Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff 1 and seven others (Law Firm Shin, Attorney Lee Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and one other

Gyeongnam-do et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu4911 decided Oct. 11, 2007

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In order to allow the intervention of a third party as stipulated in Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the rights or interests of the third party shall be infringed upon according to the result of the lawsuit in question, and the benefits at this time refers to the legal interest of the third party and does not include a simple de facto interest or economic interest. The court below determined that the third party's application for intervention in the lawsuit in the third party of this case is unlawful, because the issue of this case is merely a matter of how the issue of this case simply refers to the newly established harbor and is different from other harbors as the local government to which the plaintiffs belong, and it is merely a matter of how the issue of this case should be specified separately from the newly established harbor, and the geographical name granted to the harbor has the legal effect to be incorporated into the area under the jurisdiction of the local government concerned, or the participant, which is the local government concerned, has any influence on the legal relationship or legal status due to its geographical name.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal interest arising from participation in the lawsuit, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

A. The term “administrative disposition”, which is the subject of an appeal litigation, means an act of an administrative agency’s public law that directly affects the rights and obligations of the general public by ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or causing other legal effects, etc. with respect to a specific matter, and thus, it does not constitute an administrative disposition that does not directly cause legal changes in the legal status of the other party or other interested parties. On the other hand, whether an administrative agency’s act constitutes an administrative disposition that is the subject of an administrative litigation should be determined with due consideration of the nature and effect of the act, as well as the purpose and effect of the administrative litigation system or the function of protecting the rights of the citizens by judicial power (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du12398, Feb. 2

In light of the above legal principles and records, on December 19, 2005, the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries established the port of this case only the sub-paragraph of the Busan Port, which is the designated port, as a result of the deliberation by the Central Harbor Policy Council under his jurisdiction, and announced the official name of the harbor of this case as "new port (English name: Busan New Port Port)" while maintaining the name of the "Busan". This decision by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries does not change the jurisdiction of the local government to which the plaintiffs belong due to the decision of the name of the harbor of this case, and it does not directly change the rights and duties or legal status of the plaintiffs. Thus, the decision by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of this case cannot be deemed

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to administrative disposition, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. A third party, who is not the direct counter party to an administrative disposition, is entitled to file a revocation lawsuit where the interests protected by law are infringed by the pertinent administrative disposition, but the “interest protected by law” refers to a case where individual, direct, and specific interests exist that are protected by the relevant administrative disposition’s ground laws and regulations and relevant laws and regulations, and does not include cases where general, indirect, and abstract interests are generated by the general public (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006, etc.).

The court below determined that Defendant Busan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office did not have standing to seek cancellation of the instant public notice on the grounds stated in its reasoning, such as that even if the instant public notice is deemed an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation, the interests protected by the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have been infringed by law due to the instant public notice. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to lack of reason, constitutional fundamental rights, voting rights,

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

As seen earlier, as long as the plaintiffs' respective lawsuits against the defendants are illegal, this part of the grounds of appeal does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of this case, and therefore, it is without merit to examine them.

4. Conclusion

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.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)