Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On August 18, 1981, the plaintiff was discovered to be a person engaged in illegal circulation of grain and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above cancellation disposition on August 27, 198 of the same year after he was subject to the revocation disposition of permission for grain retail business from the defendant on August 19, 1981. The defendant ordered the above director to correct the defect in the entries in the above director's book by September 10 of the same year, and returned the above director's book to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 3 (3) of the plaintiff. The plaintiff corrected the above defect on December 1 of the same year with the correction period as the above correction period, and the plaintiff's director's correction is deemed to have been withdrawn pursuant to Article 3 (4) of the above director's correction of the above defect, and therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence 3-1, 2-1, 4-2, 5-1, 5-2, 1, 5-1, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, and 5 (delivery Certificate), the plaintiff received a lawsuit seeking revocation of the cancellation of the permission for the permission for the permission for the permission of the grain retail business of the defendant on August 27, 1981. On September 1, 19 of the same year, the defendant ordered that the above lawsuit be corrected until September 10 of the same year, and the plaintiff returned it to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff corrected it. However, since the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who was the ruling authority, revised the above lawsuit after the expiration of the period for correction, the plaintiff's correction cannot be deemed to have been dismissed, regardless of the plaintiff's rejection of the above lawsuit, and as long as the plaintiff did not receive the correction order after the correction order, the plaintiff's correction order cannot be deemed to have been rejected.

2. Determination on the merits

The plaintiff, on February 28, 1973, applied for permission for the sale and purchase of grain and applied for permission for the sale and purchase of grain to the defendant on the basis of the whole purport of the pleading in the contents of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (Administrative Measures), Eul evidence 2 (Administrative Measures), Eul evidence 3 (Criteria), Eul evidence 4 (Public Notice), and each part of the testimony at the same trial (except for the part that is not believed later). The plaintiff displayed rice mixed with the general grain and the government grain to retail stores for retail trade in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul with permission renewed on February 28, 1981. The plaintiff's act did not constitute a violation of Article 17 of the Grain Management Act and Article 28 of the former Food Grain Management Act, since the plaintiff's act did not constitute a violation of Article 29 of the former Food Grain Management Act, and the plaintiff's act did not constitute a violation of Article 29 of the former Food Grain Management Act.

However, in full view of the aforementioned witness's testimony, the Plaintiff purchased, sold, and displayed rice mixed with the government grain and the general grain from the non-party 3, the wholesaler, and the Plaintiff did not sell, but did not violate the grain retail business Act for about 17 years at the above store, but did not violate the above grain retail business Act and maintained the livelihood of the six food appliances. Considering these circumstances, the Defendant imposed the disposition of revocation of the heavy business license on the plaintiff's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 1 business license.

Therefore, since the defendant's disposition of revocation of the above business permission against the plaintiff is illegal disposition, the plaintiff's claim for revocation is justified, and the lawsuit cost is accepted and decided as per Disposition at the defendant's expense as the losing party.

January 21, 1982

Judges Park Jong-chul(Presiding Judge)