[1] Whether a shareholder or an officer of a corporation has standing to sue to seek revocation of an administrative disposition against the corporation in question (negative)

[2] In a case where a decision on contract transfer by the Minister of Finance and Economy who transfers all the contracts of a mutual savings and finance company to a non-party company is a disposition directly affecting the existence of the company in question, whether the above company has standing to sue to seek cancellation (affirmative)

[1] Generally, shareholders or executives of a corporation have a de facto or indirect economic interest in the administrative disposition against the corporation in question, and there is no standing to sue to seek revocation of the disposition on their own.

[2] The relevant decision on contract transfer made by the Minister of Finance and Economy who transfers all the contracts of a mutual savings and finance company to another mutual savings and finance company is a disposition to transfer all the contracts of the above company, and such disposition is taken, the entire contract is transferred pursuant to Article 23-9 of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Act (amended by Act No. 5050 of Dec. 29, 1995) and the above company is dissolved pursuant to Article 21-3 of the same Act. Thus, in the case where an administrative disposition on the corporation directly determines the existence of the corporation, the pertinent disposition shall have a direct and specific legal interest in the pertinent disposition even if the relevant stockholder or officer is concerned. Thus, there is standing to sue to seek revocation.

[1] Articles 23-2 and 23-8 of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 5050, Dec. 29, 1995); Articles 1 [general Administrative Disposition] and 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 23-2 and 23-8 of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 5050, Dec. 29, 1995); Articles 1 [general Administrative Disposition] and 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 70Nu164 delivered on March 23, 1971 (No. 19-1, 57), Supreme Court Decision 71Nu109 delivered on December 28, 1971 (No. 19-3, 49), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1484 delivered on December 5, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 260) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 62Nu49 delivered on July 19, 1962

Plaintiff (Attorney Giology et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Minister of Finance and Economy (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Han Mutual Savings and Finance Company and one other (Attorney Lee Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant joining the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu4270 delivered on February 7, 1996

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the defendant, on the ground that the defendant's defendant's intervenor's management and financial soundness, issued a business and property management order and contract transfer order under Article 23-2 of the former Mutual Saving and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 5050, Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). On December 22, 1994, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's contract was transferred to the non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party mutual savings and finance company pursuant to Article 23-8 of the Act. The plaintiff who is the shareholder of the defendant's intervenor, indirectly has a de facto economic interest in the disposition of this case, and there is no specific interest to be protected

2. However, in general, shareholders or executives of a corporation have a de facto or indirect economic interest in the administrative disposition against the corporation in question, and thus they have no standing to sue to seek revocation of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 70Nu164, Mar. 23, 1971; 71Nu109, Dec. 28, 1971; 95Nu1484, Dec. 5, 1995; etc.). However, the instant decision to transfer contracts in question is a disposition to transfer the entire contract of the Intervenor, and if such disposition is taken, the entire contract is transferred in accordance with Article 23-9 of the Act and the dissolution of the Intervenor in accordance with Article 21 subparagraph 3 of the Act at the same time. Accordingly, where an administrative disposition against the corporation directly depends on the corporation itself, the corporation's shareholders or executives shall have a direct and legal interest in the relevant disposition, and thus, they shall have standing to sue (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu296.

Nevertheless, the court below, without considering the validity and nature of the decision to transfer a contract in this case, denied the plaintiff's standing to sue as a third party against the plaintiff's administrative disposition, without considering the validity and nature of the decision to transfer a contract in this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to standing to sue. The part of the grounds of appeal pointing this out

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)