1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On April 26, 2005, Nonparty E filed an application with the Defendant for the establishment of a mining right for cokia (tin) extraction against the Defendant on July 27, 2005, Norado land register D and B.

As a result of the analysis of minerals extracted from the above application area, the defendant issued a disposition of denying the establishment of mining rights against Norified Land B and E, and E, on May 19, 2011, on the ground that the size of minerals and the standard of dignity are not satisfied as publicly notified by the Minister of Knowledge Economy, and on May 20, 2011, the defendant rejected the establishment of mining rights against Norified Land D.

(2) The Plaintiff filed an objection against each of the instant dispositions with the Minister of Knowledge Economy around July 21, 201, upon delegation of authority to file an objection, etc. against each of the instant dispositions from E on May 30, 201, but the Minister of Knowledge Economy dismissed the objection on April 18, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, and whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate, the plaintiff who is not the other party to the disposition of this case's refusal to revoke each disposition of this case, has no legal interest

Since the plaintiff did not raise an objection against each disposition of this case in his name, it is not necessary to determine whether to comply with the filing period based on the date of the service of the written ruling. Since the lawsuit of this case was filed 90 days after the plaintiff became aware of each disposition of this case, the filing period was imposed.

Judgment

First of all, the defendant's first argument is examined, and even if the third party is not the direct counter party of the administrative disposition, if the interests protected by the law are infringed by the administrative disposition, the revocation lawsuit is allowed to be instituted and judged by the legitimacy of the lawsuit.

or interests protected by law, however, are legally protected.