1. The reasoning of the judgment below is that the plaintiff's business permission was operated by the defendant on October 19, 197 by obtaining a business permission for 32 square meters and junbs and junbs and junbs and jus and junbs and 2 buildings located in the above 4th residential area. The above 4th business office is located in the residential area under the city planning of 00 Eup, and thus it is impossible to obtain a business permission for 9ths and 9ths of the above building on the ground of the non-party, and the above 9ths and 7ths and 9ths and 9ths and 9ths and 9ths and 9ths of the above 4ths and 9ths of the above 7ths and 9ths and 9ths of the above 7ths and 9ths of the above 9ths and 9ths of the building's 9ths and 9ths of the above 97ths and 9ths of the building.

2. In the case of cancelling a beneficial administrative act such as this case's license, the public interest needs to be revoked and the cancellation thereof are the case law of party members that make a decision by comparing the party's disadvantage due to the party's necessity and cancellation (see Supreme Court Decision 72Nu232 delivered on June 26, 1973).

However, as seen in this case, if a business license was acquired by a deceptive method with false site certification and a false certificate of change of the purpose of use of a building in applying for a business license as well as the above building's business license, it is stipulated in Article 42 (3) of the Building Act that a business license cannot be granted to an illegal building which is the above business establishment, and thus, it would be reasonable for the public interest to cancel the business license. However, if the above business license is revoked, the plaintiff would have a de facto disadvantage that prevents a business license in the above building where a business license is revoked, and the number of the above building was constructed in advance to obtain a business license, and at this time, the above building could not be seen as an illegal building for the above purpose of use, and even if the permission was revoked by a deceptive method, it cannot be seen as an abuse of the permission by the plaintiff's discretionary authority.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below cannot be reversed on the ground that there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to comparative bridges and discretionary power.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices involved.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)