2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On November 11, 1987, the non-party Sasung Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the Sasung Development Co., Ltd.) reported succession to the status of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. on the ground that it acquired the above business from the plaintiff Co., Ltd., which had conducted a liquefied petroleum gas charging business in the 474-1 (the name was changed to the Mapo-dong at Sipo-si due to the change of the administrative district on January 1, 1990) after obtaining a license for the filling business of liquefied petroleum under Article 3 of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Labling Act from the head of Sagu-si on January 23, 1987. On November 16, 1987, the head of Sachi-Gun notified that he received the above succession to the status under Article 7 of the above Act on November 11, 1987, and issued a renewed license due to the title succession.

B. On August 1, 1983, the non-party Lee Jong-jin and the owner of the same Kim Jong-jin, for which a construction permit was granted due to a design change, the above construction was permitted on November 12, 1988 to change the name of the owner of the building from the above non-party to the building, and to change the total floor area of the building into the Madung-gun's Madung-gun's Madung-gun's Madung's Madung-gun's Madung-gun's Madung-gun's 1, 474-1, and 267.97 square meters at each of the above facilities for storage and treatment of dangerous substances.

C. On January 1, 1989, pursuant to the Act on the Commencement of Osan-si 12 and the Change of the Name of Taean-gun Gun (Act No. 4050, Dec. 31, 1988), a funeral market was established in the above area and succeeded to the affairs and property of the head-gun Gun or the head-subpon branch under Article 5(1) of the Local Autonomy Act.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

Although the defendant argues that all of the lawsuits of this case filed without going through legitimate pre-trial procedures under the Administrative Appeals Act are dismissed, the plaintiff's claim of this case does not seek revocation of the above design change disposition and the succession of the status of liquefied petroleum gas-related business (the plaintiff is deemed to be a kind of permission disposition) but is recorded and clarified in the records of this case to seek nullification of the validity of the above design change disposition and the succession of the status of liquefied petroleum gas-related business. As such, Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act on the pre-trial principle does not apply to a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the administrative agency's validity or existence of a disposition, and therefore, the defendant's defense of this case is without merit.

3. Determination on the confirmation of succession to status and permission for a liquefied petroleum gas-related business

The plaintiff filed a report on the succession to the status by forging a false sales contract, etc., even though the representative director of Ssung Development did not transfer the liquefied petroleum gas to Ssung Development, the plaintiff filed a report on the succession to the status by forging a false sales contract, etc., and did not attach a special resolution on the amendment of the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff company or Ssung Development at the time of the above succession to the status. Although Ssung Development reported the succession to the status of the high-pressure gas filling business according to the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act, the defendant made a disposition on the succession to the status of the liquefied petroleum gas filling business. The above permission disposition by the defendant is null and void. Second, according to the provisions of Articles 3 (1) and 7 of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act, Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the authority to permit the succession to the status of the above liquefied petroleum gas filling business has been delegated to the Mayor/head of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun.

However, since the above succession of status, acceptance of permission and issuance of arbitration are examined as to whether the above administrative disposition is subject to administrative litigation, Article 3 (1) of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act shall obtain permission from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor or Do governor." Paragraph (3) of the same Article shall not apply to the modification of matters permitted under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article: Provided, That this provision shall not apply to minor matters as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Energy. Article 7 (1) of the same Act provides that if the business operator, etc. transfers his business or dies, and if the business operator, etc. changes the status of the business or its juristic person, the juristic person established by the merger or acquisition of the same business operator, etc., and the permission-granting authority shall not issue a new report on the change of the status of the permission-granting of the above business under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article without permission-granting of the former Enforcement Decree, and the permission-granting authority shall issue a new report on the change of the status of the permission.

4. Determination as to the claim for nullification of a construction permit disposition due to design change.

The plaintiff's ground for the above claim. First, the defendant's order of correction was issued and the defendant filed a complaint against the Lee Jong-chul, the representative director of macrossung Development, on November 12, 198 when the above order of correction was not complied with, it violated the provisions of Articles 5, 7 (4) and 42 (1) and (2) of the Building Act, and second, the building site was already constructed in accordance with the approval of alteration of the land registration plan on October 2, 198, and second, the building site was changed to a residential area on the ground, and the building site was constructed in accordance with the above order of alteration of the land registration plan on October 2, 198. Second, the building site was constructed in accordance with the above order of alteration of the land registration plan on the ground, and the building site was constructed in accordance with the above order of alteration of the land area on the ground of Article 25 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act on the ground of Article 25 (1) of the Building Act.

However, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the invalidity of administrative disposition, the benefit of confirmation is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means for the plaintiff's rights or legal status to eliminate anxietys and risks. According to the purport of the argument in this case, it is evident that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this case by forging a false sales contract, etc. to which the plaintiff had been a business owner to report succession to the status by forging a false sales contract, etc., and re-issuance of a nominal renewed permit for the reason that the plaintiff is operating a gas filling business in this case, the plaintiff's title of permission for the above gas filling business and all facilities of the building, etc. for the purpose of finding it would be sufficient if the plaintiff filed a request for the explanation of all facilities of the building, etc. for the purpose of seeking confirmation, and it is not necessary to order cancellation of this design change permission or to confirm that such disposition is null and void, and even if the above design change permission for the building was already completed by the above construction permission for the construction work without any dispute, the above construction permission cannot be deemed null and void by the above construction permission for the construction work.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the lawsuits of this case are legitimate, and they are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

October 2, 1991

Judges' Dumen (Presiding Judge)