[석유판매구역변경불허가처분취소][집32(3)특,559;공1984.10.1.(737),1498]
A. Appropriateness of a disposition of refusing to change the petroleum sales area to stabilize the supply and demand of petroleum (affirmative)
(b) Authority to adjust the supply and demand of petroleum by administrative agencies and disuse petroleum retail business;
A. The non-permission of the Plaintiff’s application for change of the petroleum selling area for changing the petroleum selling area from the Maritime Affairs and Islands to the Jeonnam-do Won is based on the stabilization of petroleum supply in Jeonnam-do and is therefore justified in light of the provisions of Articles 17, 12, and 23 of the Petroleum Business Act, since the Defendant (the Do Governor) is merely a half of the petroleum supply capacity of the day in Jeonnam-do, and the taxi is merely an excessive portion of the petroleum supply capacity, and the taxi price of the 3,0000 si is a trend of decreasing the demand for petroleum products by converting the fuel into L.P. L. L. (D.).
B. The government's disuse 29 March 29, 1982 petroleum retail business (T.O.) discontinued shop can only be grassed to the effect that when it is necessary to increase petroleum supply without the authority to permit petroleum retail business, the power to adjust petroleum supply and demand granted to the defendant under Articles 17 (1) and 10 of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 28 of the Petroleum Business Act shall not be extinguished due to that reason.
(a) Articles 12, 23, 17, 17, 17, 17, 10, and 28 of the Petroleum Business Act;
Woo Petroleum Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Jeonnam-do Governor (Attorney Kim Dong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 83Gu109 delivered on February 7, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's attorney's grounds of appeal are also examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's application for permission for petroleum retail business with the selling area of Jeonnam-do as of May 10, 1982, on the ground that the plaintiff's excessive supply of petroleum is likely to undermine the stability of supply and demand of the former Do Governor, and applied for permission for petroleum retail business with the selling area limited to Jeonnam-do's sea and island at September 18 of the same year with the permission from the defendant 30 of the same month, and applied for permission for change of " Jeonnam-do's sea and island" as of July 2 of the same year to "Seoul-do's 16th day of the above permission" to the "One-half day of the above 16th day of the supply and demand of the former 16th day of the former Petroleum Business Act" (the plaintiff's application for permission for change of the sales area is substantially the same with the above permission for petroleum retail business with the above 16th day of May 10, 1982).
2. Examination of the court below by comparing the process of cooking evidence with the above fact-finding process, and it did not show that there was a mistake of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as argued in the arguments, but it is also the theory that the fixed number system of petroleum retail business was abolished on March 29, 1982 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 52). However, if it is necessary to increase petroleum supply, it cannot be viewed that the right to adjust petroleum supply and demand granted to the defendant pursuant to Article 17 subparagraphs 1 and 10 of the Petroleum Business Act, delegation of administrative power, and Article 28 of the Regulations on Entrustment, the right to adjust petroleum supply and demand imposed on the defendant pursuant to Article 17 subparagraph 1 and 10 of the Petroleum Business Act cannot be deemed extinguished due to the above fact-finding, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles of Article 17 of the Petroleum Business Act, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to omission of discretionary power of administrative actions.
3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kang Young-young (Presiding Justice)