“Stop changing the name of ‘Singil Hot Springs Station’ without hot springs” lawsuit… Court Sir | yunhap news

Delivery time2023-12-04 07:00

“There is no legal disadvantage to the descendants of the discoverer of hot springs and nearby residents, so they are not eligible to be plaintiffs.”

(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Daehee Lee = An administrative lawsuit was filed to cancel the government’s decision to change the station name of ‘Singil Hot Spring Station’ on Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 4, which is causing confusion due to the lack of hot spring facilities nearby, but was dismissed by the court.

This is because the descendants of the hot spring discoverer or local residents who filed the lawsuit do not have the right to file a lawsuit because their legal interests cannot be seen as being infringed even if the station name is changed.

According to the legal community on the 4th, the 2nd Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Chief Judge Shin Myeong-hee) dismissed a lawsuit filed by 12 people against the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to cancel the station name revision.

Dismissal is a decision to end the trial without hearing the case if the lawsuit does not meet the requirements or is not subject to judgment.

Singil Oncheon Station, located in Singil-dong, Danwon-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, opened under that name in 2000 when the terminus of Subway Line 4 was extended to Oido Station.

In the 1980s, hot spring water was discovered nearby and the name was given to specialize the region, but development of the hot spring was aborted.

As confusion arose, with some passengers coming to take a hot spring bath just by looking at the station name and then wasting away, a skit took place where a sign was posted at the station saying, “There is no hot springs at Singil Hot Springs Station.”

In the end, Ansan City proposed to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to change the station name to ‘Neunggil Station’ in 2020, and it was accepted after deliberation by the Station Name Deliberation Committee in January 2021.

Then, a total of 12 people, including three descendants who claimed to have inherited the right to discover hot spring water and those who had ‘Singil Hot Springs Station’ in the name of their apartment, filed an administrative lawsuit requesting to cancel the station name change, but the court did not accept it.

The court ruled that this disposition itself cannot be considered an administrative disposition subject to an appeal, and that the plaintiffs’ individual, direct, and specific legal interests cannot be said to have been infringed upon by the change in station name, so they do not have ‘eligibility to be plaintiffs.’

According to Supreme Court precedent, administrative dispositions subject to appeals are limited to actions that directly affect the rights and obligations of citizens.

The court ruled that because the work of enacting and revising station names is for the public interest of efficient and systematic management and use of public facilities, it is difficult to say that it directly affects the rights and obligations of local residents or interested parties.

The court said, “If the station name is revised, the disadvantage for the heirs is that they will be deprived of the publicity and advertising effect for the hot spring, and the remaining plaintiffs will lose the premium of being an apartment near the station because of the name,” adding, “This is only an indirect, factual or economic interest.” He stated the reason for his rejection, saying,

The plaintiffs appealed the decision to dismiss.

[email protected]

Report via KakaoTalk okjebo
<저작권자(c) 연합뉴스,
Reproduction and redistribution prohibited>
2023/12/04 07:00 Sent