(a) Where a third party has standing to sue to seek revocation of administrative disposition;

(b) The case holding that there is no benefit in legal action to seek revocation of a disposition of appointment of professor on the ground that university students' major has infringed upon learning rights by appointing another professor;

A. Although a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition has a legal interest in seeking revocation of the administrative disposition, the standing to sue in the revocation lawsuit shall be recognized. However, the legal interest here refers to the direct and specific interest protected by the laws and regulations that form the basis of the disposition in question, and it does not include indirect, factual, or economic interest.

(b) The case holding that there is no interest in legal action to seek revocation of a disposition of appointment of professor on the ground that university students' major has infringed upon learning rights by appointing another professor.

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Attorneys Lee Dong-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Seoul National University General;

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu25337 delivered on February 25, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even a third party who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition has a legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition, the standing to sue in the revocation lawsuit shall be recognized. However, the legal interest here refers to a direct and specific interest protected by the law that forms the basis for the disposition in question, and where it is not an indirect or factual interest, it shall not be included (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8135, May 23, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu10360, Dec. 13, 1991; 91Nu13700, Dec. 8, 1992).

However, in the case of this case, the plaintiffs are attending the tax policy subject as students attending the Seoul Special Metropolitan City University Tax Department, and the defendant is a professor in charge of tax policy item that the defendant should have access in economics, and thereby infringing the plaintiffs' right to learning by appointing the non-party, who majored in administrative science. However, even if the defendant's appointment disposition of this case causes disadvantages as argued by the plaintiffs, the disadvantage is not only an indirect or factual disadvantage, and it alone does not necessarily mean that the defendant's appointment disposition of this case has a benefit of lawsuit seeking revocation of the appointment disposition of this case

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing.

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 Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)