[2] In a case where an administrative agency revoked a report of change of use to attract bicycle racing outdoor counter in part of a wedding building on the ground that it brings serious traffic congestion, the case holding that the disposition is unlawful on the ground that the public interest needs to revoke the acceptance of the report is a strong case to justify the disadvantage suffered by the other party

In the case of cancelling a beneficial administrative disposition, the exercise of the right of revocation, even if there exists a ground for revocation, shall be determined by comparing and comparing with the disadvantage suffered by the other party only when it is necessary for important public interest to justify the infringement of the right of vested interests or when it is necessary to protect the interests of a third party. In a case where the disadvantage suffered by the other party is enormous than the necessity of public interest due to such disposition, it is in violation of the discretionary authority, and it itself is illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu17723, Aug. 24, 1993; 2003Du7606, Jul. 22, 2004).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was running 00 wedding halls in the building of this case on May 198, 200. The plaintiff's 2nd 5th 1st 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 2nd 2nd 5th 2nd 2nd 5th 2nd 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 1st 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 5th 2002nd 1st 5th 2nd 1st 5th 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 1st 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 1st 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 1st 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 2002nd 2nd 4th 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 3th 3th 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 3th .

The following circumstances revealed by the facts and records, namely, the Plaintiff did not properly notify the Defendant of the plan to attract bicycle racing out of part of the building of the instant report. Accordingly, the Defendant appears to have omitted the examination of whether the requirements stipulated in the Traffic Impact Assessment Act were met when deciding whether to accept the instant report. However, the Defendant cancelled the acceptance of the instant report on the ground that the acceptance of the instant report is not for cancellation of the report on the ground that it would cause serious traffic congestion, speculation, and deterioration in the residential environment and the educational environment of local residents, rather than for cancellation of the report on the bicycle racing out of the bicycle, and the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to supplement the defects by submitting the traffic impact reduction measures following the alteration of the bicycle racing project plan pursuant to Article 24 of the Traffic Impact Assessment Act without immediately cancelling the acceptance of the instant report on the ground that the Plaintiff’s construction of the bicycle racing out of the bicycle racing in its entirety could not be seen as unlawful from the point of view of view that the Plaintiff’s construction of the bicycle and its construction of the bicycle out-of-the-sale facilities, which can be seen to the extent of public interests and interests.

Therefore, although the reasoning of the court below is somewhat inappropriate, the conclusion of the court below that the disposition of this case is unlawful is eventually justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the specific circumstances of the application for change of use of this case, the traffic impact assessment law and the necessity of important public interest as otherwise alleged in

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and 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 Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)