B. Whether there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the notification acceptance disposition under the above "A" without seeking invalidation of the transfer act by a transferor who claims invalidation of the transfer of liquefied petroleum gas-related business (affirmative)

C. Whether there exists a legal interest in filing a lawsuit seeking nullification of the disposition of building permit where a construction work is completed and the certificate of completion inspection is received before the conclusion of fact-finding pleading (negative)

B. Acceptance of a report on succession to the status by the acquisition of a business by the permission-granting authority is based on the premise that a legitimate transfer of business exists, so the transferor who claims that the transfer of business is null and void due to civil litigation has legal interest in seeking nullification of the above notification acceptance disposition by an administrative litigation against the permission-granting authority without seeking invalidation of the transfer

C. Even if a building permit disposition is null and void as a matter of course, if a person subject to a permit disposition completes the construction work before the conclusion of pleadings in the original trial and is issued a certificate of completion inspection, the stage in which the building construction can be prevented by obtaining a confirmation of invalidity of the building permit disposition. Therefore, there is no legal interest in filing a lawsuit to nullify the

The remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff are dismissed, and all costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal on succession to status of liquefied petroleum gas business

A. Article 3(1) and (4) of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act provides that a person who intends to engage in liquefied petroleum gas filling business shall obtain permission from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor or Do governor, and the criteria and scope of permission shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree, facility standards and technical standards shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Energy, and the person who falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 4 (amended by Act No. 4412 of Nov. 30, 191; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall not obtain the above permission. Meanwhile, Article 7 provides that where the above charging business is transferred, the transferee shall succeed to the status of the operator, but the transferee shall report the fact of succession to the permission authority under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Energy. In this case, Article 4 provides that a person falling under each subparagraph of Article 4 shall not take over the charging business, and Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Energy No. 112 of Jun. 22, 1990) shall submit the report to the permission authority within 17.

B. In light of the purport of the above provision, the permission-granting authority shall investigate whether an application for a new charging business is in conformity with the permission standards set by the Presidential Decree, and if an applicant meets the above permission standards and does not fall under any subparagraph of Article 4 of the above Act, the permission shall be granted. However, the report on succession to status by transfer of the above filling business already complies with the above permission standards, and if the transferee does not fall under any subparagraph of Article 4 of the above Act after examining whether the business falls under any of the above permission standards, it shall be accepted and it shall be allowed the transferee to operate the above business lawfully. Thus, the act of the permission-granting authority accepting a report on succession to status by transfer of business under Article 7 (2) of the above Act does not merely receive a report on the fact that the transferee succeeded to the business by the legal effect of the transfer of business already occurred between the transferor and the transferee, but it shall be reasonable to deem the new permission-granting as an act of establishing and operating the right under Article 7 (2) of the above Act and thus, it shall be deemed a legitimate permission-granting.

In addition, the acceptance of the report on succession to status by the business takeover by the permission-granting authority is premised on the lawful transfer of business. Therefore, the transferor who claims that the transfer of the business is null and void due to civil litigation, has legal interests to seek nullification of the above notification acceptance disposition against the permission-granting authority by means of administrative litigation without seeking invalidation of the transfer act.

C. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking the invalidity of the above disposition of permission for succession to the status of the liquefied petroleum gas-related business as a matter of course, and the transferee succeeds to the position of the transferor, and the permission-granting agency's acceptance of a report on succession to the above status does not constitute an administrative disposition ordering the creation of any right or the burden on obligations, and even if the above acceptance of the report constitutes an administrative disposition, the transferor has a legal interest in seeking the invalidity of the above disposition of acceptance of the report, only if there is a final and conclusive judgment on the transfer which is the premise of the above administrative disposition due to civil litigation, and as such, there is no interest in seeking the invalidity of the above disposition, and as such, there is no interest in seeking the invalidity of the above disposition. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles

Therefore, since the argument pointing this out is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below on the above part cannot be maintained without examining the remaining grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the design change disposition

Even if a construction permit disposition is null and void as a matter of course, if the person who received the permit completed the construction work and received the certificate of completion inspection before the conclusion of pleadings in the original trial, the construction permit disposition can be invalidated and the construction of the building can be prevented. Thus, there is no legal interest in filing a lawsuit for nullification of the permit disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1131 delivered on April 24, 1992).

On July 10, 1989, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, the lower court recognized that the instant building had already been completed and completed a completion inspection on the completion of construction works in accordance with the design modification permission, and for the same purport, it is justifiable to determine that there is no legal interest in confirming the invalidity of the design modification construction permission disposition. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest in confirmation, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

3. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the part of the claim for nullification of the succession to status of the liquefied petroleum gas filling business is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to this appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)