Expenses incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant among the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the costs incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant's supplementary intervenor shall be borne by the defendant.

2. Determination on this safety defense

The purport of Article 14(1) and (2) of the Liquor Tax Act is that the Defendant’s above change of name to a license for manufacturing a brewing liquor is merely a notification of the effect (the change of name) under Article 14(1) and (2) of the same Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidation is not an administrative disposition that is the subject of administrative litigation. Thus, the purport of Article 14(1) and (2) of the Liquor Tax Act is that there is no benefit in litigation. Thus, if a report of inheritance is filed, the effect of the report does not lead to the legal effect of obtaining a license for manufacturing a liquor, etc. under Article 14(2) of the Liquor Tax Act, but if a report of inheritance is filed and the reporter does not have any reason under Article 14(2) of the Liquor Tax Act, it shall be deemed that the license for manufacturing a liquor should be changed to the reporter’s name. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of change of license for manufacturing a liquor is without merit.

The Defendant’s Intervenor filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disposition against the Defendant on July 7, 1973, and the Plaintiffs did not go through any objection procedure despite the fact that the Defendant’s rejection was made in the form of the return of documents from the Defendant on March 3, 1980. However, the Defendant asserted on December 18 of the same year that the lawsuit was brought against the Defendant, which exceeded the period of release. However, in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of administrative disposition such as this case, the provision on the restriction of the period of release under Article 5 of the Administrative Litigation Act is not applicable. Thus, the aforementioned defense is groundless.

In addition, the defendant assistant intervenor sought the recovery of the plaintiffs' claim on the premise that the defendant's change of the license infringed the plaintiff's right to inheritance against the deceased Kim-kick-ro, and the lawsuit for recovery of the right to inheritance should be brought within three years from the date on which the plaintiff knew of the fact of infringement. Even though the defendant knew of it at the time of the change of the license, it is reasonable that the plaintiff's claim for recovery of the right to inheritance has been brought within three years after the lapse of three years. However, the defendant assistant intervenor's objection is obviously not a lawsuit for recovery of the right

3. Judgment on the merits

As evidence No. 2, evidence No. 17-2, evidence No. 3, 5, 6, and 7 (Evidence No. 6, evidence No. 2-6, respectively), and evidence No. 8, and the whole purport of oral argument, all of which are indicated as evidence No. 173, the defendant's 1-2, and the defendant's 1-2 were deceased on May 27, 197, and the defendant's 1-2, the defendant's 5-2, who did not know that the above 1-2, No. 17-2, No. 17-2, and the above 1-2, No. 4, the defendant's 1-2, and the defendant's 6-2, who did not know that the above 1-3, No. 17-2, and the above 1-3, No. 3-2, the defendant's 5-2, the defendant's 6-2, who did not attract the plaintiff's heir to the above 1-6-2's disqualification.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case is reasonable, and this is accepted, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party.

may 15, 1984

Judges Kim Jae-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul's disease