[행정처분(두부생산판매금지등)취소청구사건][고집1979특,250]
Cases of no interest in the lawsuit
As long as the business license of the second-class manufacturing business was revoked after the administrative disposition of the prohibition of the second-class manufacturing and sale, and the lawsuit of the revocation of the business license becomes final and conclusive against the plaintiff, it is inappropriate as the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of the prohibition of the second-class manufacturing and sale of the second-class manufacturing business in which the valid business license exists,
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Daegu Market
The instant lawsuit is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant's administrative disposition against the plaintiff on February 11, 1977 as to the prohibition of double-production sale shall be revoked. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Details and details of the instant disposition
In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11, and the whole purport of pleadings, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, and each part of the testimony of the witness red and tear, which are the largest material, obtained permission from the Do governor on May 19, 1971 (the right of permission was delegated to the head of the Si/Gun and obtained the same permission again from the defendant on September 1, 1976) for manufacturing two kinds of parts (the right of permission was delegated to the head of the Si/Gun, and the head of the Si/Gun on September 1, 1976) and manufacturing and selling the parts with the trade name of the plaintiff Nos. 1, 3, 393, and the plaintiff Nos. 1, 1977.
2. On July 27, 1977, after the disposition of this case was revoked on the part of the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant, on the ground that the above business permission of the plaintiff was revoked on July 27, 197, after the disposition of this case. Accordingly, since the lawsuit of this case is disputed that the interests in the lawsuit of this case were nonexistent, the defendant revoked the business permission of this case on July 27, 197 on the ground that the plaintiff continued to conduct the business in violation of the business suspension order of the defendant against the plaintiff on July 27, 197, on the ground that the plaintiff violated the business suspension order of this case on Nov. 7, 1978 and the defendant joining the defendant on July 27, 197, the defendant's appeal was dismissed on the ground that the defendant's appeal did not violate the business suspension order of the party member, and therefore, the plaintiff's business cancellation was reversed on March 13, 1979 by the defendant's appeal, and therefore, it cannot be justified.
Therefore, the above cancellation disposition against the plaintiff not only has binding force as a valid administrative disposition by its own fairness, but also has the possibility of cancellation of the disposition (i.e., until the lawsuit for cancellation is finalized against the plaintiff), even though there is a benefit of dispute over the propriety of the disposition in this case, as long as it becomes clear that the lawsuit for cancellation of the permission becomes final and conclusive against the plaintiff as the lawsuit for cancellation of the permission becomes final and conclusive against the plaintiff, the lawsuit in this case, which is based on the premise of the existence of the valid business permission, shall be deemed unlawful as there
The defendant's main defense is justified.
Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Park Jin-hun (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-hun