According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the following facts, found that the effect of the permission by the non-party 1 is illegal, since the non-party 1 had no physical nature of the above permission, he purchased from the non-party 1 on May 20, 1985, and acquired all of the above gas station facilities from the defendant on June 19, 1985. Accordingly, the non-party 2, who had no physical nature of the permission by the non-party 1, had no physical nature of the above permission. The non-party 1, who had no physical nature of the above permission, purchased the above permission by the non-party 1 on July 1, 1984. The non-party 1, who had no physical nature of the above permission, had no physical nature of the permission, and the non-party 1, who had no physical nature of the above permission, had no physical nature of the permission's act of selling petroleum to the non-party 3, 1984.

However, according to the provisions of Articles 12(3), 9(1) and 12(4) of the Petroleum Business Act, when a petroleum retailer transfers the whole petroleum sales business or dies, and when there is a merger between a corporation and a petroleum retailer, the transferee of the whole petroleum sales business, the inheritor, or the corporation surviving the merger or established by the merger shall succeed to the status of the petroleum retailer.

A person who succeeds to the status of a petroleum retailer shall report the fact of succession to the Minister of Energy as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Minister of Power and Resources (in this case, even if the plaintiff has reported the acquisition of the oil station to the defendant entrusted with the authority of the Minister of Power and Resources), and the permission for the petroleum selling business (gas station) has the nature of the so-called permission, so it is possible to transfer the business, and in this case, the transferee has transferred the rights and obligations of the transferor according to the above permission to the transferee as the transferor succeeds to the status of the transferor, so if the transferor has any illegal cause to cancel the permission, the permission-granting agency may take a disciplinary measure against the transferee on this ground, and even if the transferee has obtained the permission again from the permission-granting agency after the acquisition, it is based on the premise that the transferor's succession to the status is not denied.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held that the cause attributable to the transferor (non-party 1) in this case does not affect the plaintiff as the transferee shall not affect the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the revocation of permission for petroleum selling business

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)