법원에 행정작용을 다투려는 자는 사법심사를 제기할 원고적격이 있어야 한다. 행정소송법 제12조에 따라, 취소소송은 처분 등의 취소를 구할 법률상 이익이 있는 자가 제기할 수 있다. 따라서 행정행위에 대한 사법심사를 제기하고자 하는 자는 행정청의 결정으로 불이익을 받았고 법률상 보호된 이익이 있다는 것을 보여야 한다. 특히 오늘날 환경행정소송분야에서 행정청의 위법한 처분으로 영향을 받는 환경오염 및 환경침해지역 인근주민과 같은 제3자가 원고적격을 가질 수 있는지 문제된다. 원고적격은 미국, 영국, 독일, 프랑스 등 외국에서는 광범하게 인정되고 있다. 우리 행정소송법 제12조의 해석과 관련하여 환경행정소송에서 제3자의 원고적격이 확대될 수 있는지가 문제된다. 최근 대법원은 근거법령과 관련법령, 침해의 성질과 내용 및 정도 등의 해석을 통해 환경상 이익의 범위를 넓혀왔다. 이 논문은 학설과 판례를 참작하여 "법률상 이익"의 해석을 통해 제3자의 원고적격 확대의 가능성을 검토한다. 즉, 법률의 의미 및 범위는 근거법령과 관련법령뿐만 아니라 절차법령 및 헌법까지 의미하는지. 또한 "법률상 이익"의 의미는 개별적이고 직접적이며 구체적인 이익이지만, 법령기준론, 피침해기준론, 수인한도론 및 기본권기준론으로 탄력적으로 해석해야 한다. 그리고 제3자의 의미와 한계는 환경영향평가대상지역이나 사전환경성검토대상지역의 주민은 원고적격 인정에 문제가 없으나, 그 대상지역 밖의 주민은 환경상 이익의 침해에 대한 입증의 부담을 지고 있다.

A person bringing a court challenge to an administrative decision must have standing to seek judicial review. According to Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the revocation litigation may be instituted by a person having legal interests to seek the revocation of a disposition, etc. So a person seeking judicial scrutiny of agency action had to show that he had a legally protected interest-that is, one recognized by statute-that was adversely affected by agency`s decision. The "legally protected interest" test suffered from a number of deficiencies that led to its eventual rejection. It tend to confuse standing issues with merits issues, because the court was required to consider the merits of the plaintiff`s assertions of administrative illegality in order to determine whether he had a sufficient legal interest to confer standing. Litigants have to argue that the Act did not merely clearly codify the existing "legal interest" theory but rather expanded the availability of standing by allowing judicial review whenever the complainant could prove that he was adversely affected. Today specially, in the field of the environmental administrative litigation, it is an issue whether the third party, such as citizens living nearby environmental pollution area and environmental damages area to be effected by the illegal dispositions of administrative agencies, could have a standing to sue. The standing to sue has been admited extensively in foreign country, such as America, England, Germany, France etc. Also, in connection with interpretation of Article 12 of the administrative litigation Act, it is an important issue that the standing of the third party in an environmental administrative litigation is expanded. In recent years, the Supreme Court has expanded the zone of environmental interests protected by interpretation of the basis statute and the statute conserned, and natures, contents, degrees. In consideration of the theory and the judicial precedent, this thesis examine the possibility to expand the standing of the third party by interpretation of "legal interests", as follows: -The meaning and the extent of the statute: It means to include not only the basis statute and statute concerned but also procedure statute, moreover the constitutional law. -The meaning of the legal "interests": It means a individual, firsthand, concrete interests. But it should be interpreted elastically with the interpretation statute standard theory, the infringement interests theory, the perseverance limit theory and the basic rights standard theory. -The meaning and the limit of the third party: It is no problem for the inhabitants in subject area of environmental impacts assessment and in subject area of prior examination of environmental nature to be admitted the standing. But it is a question that citizens living out of the subject area take the burden of proof for their environmental interests to be infringed.