According to the provisions of Article 35 (3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, when a herb druggist or drug wholesaler intends to modify matters permitted, he shall obtain permission from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Busan Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. According to the provisions of Article 24 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, when a herb druggist intends to transfer the permitted place, he shall obtain permission from the Do governor. According to the provisions of attached Table 18 (5) of the Gyeonggi-do Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare under Article 2 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, he can be known that the affairs of permission for relocation of herb store are delegated to the head of the Gun, and the Do governor's permission under the provisions of Article 35 (3) of the above Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, or Article 35 (4) of the Addenda of the same Act should be deemed to take procedures under the provisions of Article 24 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. Thus, even if there was no administrative instruction concerning the disposal of the drug wholesaler within the Gyeonggi-do.

In addition, since a new legal order is formed upon the formation of the administrative act based on the above administrative act, even if it is impossible to cancel it without permission, and in an administrative act benefiting the other party such as permission, the cancellation authority cannot cancel it just because there is a ground for cancellation, and it is reasonable to determine whether to cancel it by comparing the necessity of public interest to be cancelled and the disadvantage to the other party due to cancellation. Thus, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined the compensation problem as it was inevitable to move the place of business because the construction work of the plaintiff's oriental medicine, including the plaintiff's oriental medicine, and the vice governor, the head of the relevant bureau, the head of relevant Gun, the representative of oriental medicine and the representative of the affected private sector, etc., of the plaintiff's new medical facility at the time of Gwangju's relocation without considering the circumstances that the plaintiff's new medical facility's new medical facility's relocation could have been affected (the plaintiff's new medical facility's new medical facility's new medical facility's relocation without compensation for two years).

The facts are as follows: even if there are defects such as the time when the defendant's disposition of permission to move the place of business against the plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the defendant abused its discretionary power when comparing the necessity of public interest to cancel the permission to move the place of business and the disadvantage caused by the infringement of the right to acquire the plaintiff's right to the plaintiff's right to the plaintiff's horse as a result of its cancellation. In this regard, the court below's decision that the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful is just and it cannot be said that there were errors such as the theory of lawsuit. This point is without merit.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)