(b) The case holding that it is unnecessary to go through the hearing under the proviso of Article 67 of the same Act when the administrative agency revokes the disposition for internal authorization for the trading of used cars; and

B. The case holding that if the plaintiff, who was subject to the disposition of internal authorization from the administrative agency after securing a certain facility, filed an application with the owner of used cars transaction business, but failed to comply with it, was equipped with all the facilities set forth in the above sub-section, and the administrative agency, along with supporting documents, ordered the plaintiff to complete the implementation of the above sub-section on the ground that the facilities secured by the plaintiff, which the plaintiff secured by the administrative agency, failed to secure the facilities set forth in the above sub-section, but the plaintiff filed a report to the effect that he had the facilities set forth in the above sub-section, even if he had already completed the above sub-section without any separate measures, such revocation of the disposition of internal authorization does not require the procedure of hearing as stipulated in the proviso of Article

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on December 14, 1989, the defendant secured the facilities such as the time and filed an application with the plaintiff on December 14, 1989. In the event that the defendant does not comply with the above disposition, the court below held on June 1, 1990 that the plaintiff was equipped with all the facilities set forth in the above sub-sections and attached documents proving that the defendant failed to secure the facilities set forth in the above sub-sections and ordered the plaintiff to complete the execution of the above sub-sections on the sole ground that the facilities secured by the plaintiff did not secure the facilities set forth in the above sub-sections without any separate measures, but the defendant did not perform the above sub-sections and did not perform the above sub-sections, and thus, it did not have any further reason to recognize that the above disposition was unlawful unless the above sub-section 67 of the Automobile Management Act was revoked. Thus, the court below held that the above disposition did not have any other reason for revocation without any specific reason.

Article 67 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 4489 of Dec. 31, 191) provides that when the Minister of Construction and Transportation intends to cancel permission, etc. or order the suspension of business pursuant to Article 60, or when he intends to impose a penalty pursuant to Article 61, he shall hear the opinion of the business operator or his representative: Provided, That this provision does not apply where the business operator or his representative fails to comply with it without any justifiable reason, or he directly confirms the contents of the violation which is the cause of the disposition of cancellation, etc., the case where the business operator directly confirms the contents of the violation, which is the cause of the disposition of cancellation, is not the case where it is directly confirmed, and it is not necessary to confirm the fact that the act itself was the cause of the disposition of cancellation, and therefore, it is not necessary to hold a hearing in this case where the defendant cancels the disposition of cancellation because it falls under the case under the proviso of Article 67 of the former Automobile Management Act, which is not the cause of the disposition of cancellation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)