(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.1.22. 선고 2015구합52173 판결

The Defendant’s decision on the selection of orders and prizes awarded in the field of design merit among the design designs awarded in Korea against B, C, D, E, and F on October 31, 2014 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, in accordance with Article 5 of the Industrial Design Promotion Act, Articles 7 and 2014 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, who contributed to the promotion of design management and promotion of enterprises, decided to award prizes, such as decorations and medals in the fields of design service, presidential commendation, Prime Minister commendation, official commendation by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, etc., to a person who contributed significantly to the promotion of design management and promotion of enterprises, etc., and upon receiving a candidate’s direct application or recommendation from the excavation promotion group from June 23, 2014 to July 22, 2014, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy “public announcement of the subject matter of Korean design 16 times” (the public announcement of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 2014-221, hereinafter referred to as “instant public announcement”).

B. On July 21, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a design contribution award to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and submitted documents, such as a statement of public records.

C. On May 26, 2014 and June 17, 2014, and on August 5, 2014, the Korea Institute of Design Promotion recommended 36 candidates for each category of design designs, including the Plaintiff, to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy through the Review Committee. The Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy proceeds the procedures for disclosure and verification from September 12, 2014 to September 22, 2014, and investigates criminal records, etc. from September 8, 2014 to October 30 of the same month, and recommended B to the Minister of Security and Public Administration by the Minister of Security and Security, who was held on October 8, 2014.

D. On October 31, 2014, the Defendant, on the official gazette, posted to B the order of G Industry Merit, C the order of industrial merit, and the order of industrial merit to D, E, and F (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant’s selection of the order of merit and the prize winner” in the official Gazette (hereinafter referred to as “the instant selection”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. Summary of the main defense

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s act of selecting B, etc. as the winner of the Order of Design Merit in the Republic of Korea was unlawful in deviation from and abuse of discretion, and sought revocation of the instant selection act. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the instant selection act was unlawful as it was filed by a person without standing to sue, on the ground that the Plaintiff was merely a third party, not the other party to the instant selection act, and that there was no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant selection act.

(b) Markets:

1) Even a third party, not directly inside and outside of an administrative disposition, has legal interest to seek nullification or revocation of the administrative disposition, the Plaintiff’s attack is human nature. The legal interest here refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the relevant disposition. However, this does not include cases where there is an indirect or factual interest, such as an abstract, average, and general interest commonly owned by the general public as a result of public protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3964, Feb. 28, 1995; 94Nu14544, Sept. 26, 1995). Even if there are two applicants for beneficial administrative disposition such as authorization and permission, etc., one competition with each other, it is difficult to seek revocation of the disposition, such as permission or permission, etc., on the same area subject to reclamation license or permission, or on a certain distance or business in a certain area, it cannot be seen that the other party to the pertinent disposition was not subject to revocation of the disposition (see, 2. 15).

2) Article 80 of the Constitution provides that the President shall award orders and other honors under the conditions as prescribed by Act. Articles 5(1) and 7 of the Awards and Decorations Act provide that the President shall decide upon a person subject to an order of merit, subject to deliberation by the State Council after the head of the central administrative agency upon the recommendation of a decoration by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, who is the head of the central administrative agency, in accordance with the above Constitution and the Awards and Decorations Act. Since the Defendant’s decision-making of a person subject to an order of merit and medal at his/her own discretion after obtaining the recommendation of a decoration from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, the Defendant’s decision-making of a person subject to an order of merit and medal is not based on the applicant’s filing of an application, it does not necessarily constitute a case where an administrative agency’s decision-making on the beneficial administrative disposition against one of the applicants subject to an order of merit and medal is bound to result in the rejection against the other party. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s decision-making of a person subject to receive an order of merit cannot be understood.

3) Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is a legitimate interest in dispute over the validity of the instant selection act to the Plaintiff, who is not the direct counterpart to the instant selection act. The instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is unlawful

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.