[복합비료생산업허가취소처분취소][집32(3)특,462;공1984.10.1.(737),1483]
(a) In the revocation of a license, a statement of facts constituting the underlying laws and regulations;
B. In a case where the suspended company resumes its business from February 29, 1980 to August 31 of the same year without filing a report after the expiration of the suspension period from August 31 of the same year, whether it constitutes “when it suspends its business for more than one year” (negative)
(a) The revocation of a license requires a statement of facts corresponding to the above laws and regulations to the extent that the person on whom the license was based and who received the disposition is aware of the violation, and any defect in the statement of such fact may not be cured by the statement after the disposition is made.
B. If the period of business suspension reported by the Plaintiff was from February 29, 1980 to August 31, 1980, and the business suspension was made without filing a subsequent report, and the credit was issued for the purchase of fertilizer ingredients through the non-party corporation on June 10, 1981 for the production of fertilizers, and the raw materials were imported from July 9 of the same year from the U.S. and completed 8.13 customs procedures for the same year, it is difficult to view that it was the time of business suspension for not less than one year as stipulated in subparagraph 3 of Article 14 of the former Fertilizer Control Act (amended by Act No. 3598, Dec. 31, 1982)
(a) Article 1(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 14 subparag. 3 of the former Fertilizer Control Act (amended by Act No. 3598 of Dec. 31, 1982); Article 14(1)3 of the Fertilizer Control Act;
Korea Agricultural Industry Corporation (Attorney Kim Ho-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu55 delivered on November 16, 1982
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the first ground for appeal:
Based on the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to obtain permission for the production and sale of the 4th-class fertilizer (class 4th-class fertilizer) Habak, HON and halog after November 2, 1981. (1) On February 4, 1980, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to obtain permission for the production of the fertilizers pursuant to the legal standards of the 4th-class fertilizer as amended pursuant to Article 3117 of the Public Notice of Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Notice of Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries") from March 1, 1980 to May 31 of the same year. (2) The plaintiff did not report the suspension of business from September 1, 1979 to March 31, 1980 without permission for the production of the fertilizers for more than one year after the expiration of the suspension period. (3) The above act constituted a violation of Article 13 and Article 12 subparagraph 14 of the Fertilizer Control Act.
However, the disposition of cancellation of permission requires a statement of fact corresponding to the above law to the extent that it can be known that the person who received the disposition was involved in the act of violation. The defect in the statement of fact can not be cured by the statement of fact after the disposition.
According to the records, Article 14(1) and (3) of the Fertilizer Control Act (amended by Act No. 3598, Dec. 31, 1982) (amended by Act No. 3598, Dec. 31, 1982) provides that the defendant's notice of the disposition of cancellation of permission of this case (No. 20 No. 20) provides that Article 14(1) and (3) of the Fertilizer Control Act (amended by Act No. 3598, Dec. 31, 1982) shall be applied to this case, and therefore, Article 14 of the same Act shall be deemed to be a clerical error in subparagraphs 1 and 3 of the same Article, and there is only a statement of fact falling under the above Act and subordinate statutes, and therefore, the above Act and subordinate statutes shall not be known as falling under the above Act and subordinate statutes, so the permission of this case shall not be revoked as a defect.
2. On the second ground for appeal:
If, on its reasoning, the Plaintiff produced fertilizers from April 20, 1979 to July 14 of the same year with permission for the fertilizer production business, and reported the suspension of business from September 1 to February 28, 1980 on the ground of the relocation of the factory, and reported the suspension of business from February 29, 1980 to August 31 of the same year on the ground of the relocation of the factory and the purchase of raw materials, and it is difficult for the lower court to recognize the suspension of business from February 29 to 31 of the same year without filing a report on the suspension of business again after the expiration of the period of suspension of business, and to view it as unlawful for the Plaintiff’s suspension of business from June 10, 1981 to 310 of the same year on the grounds of the expiration of the period of suspension of business from June 10, 1981.
Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)