Whether it is possible to request the revocation of the final and conclusive disposition revoking business permission.

Inasmuch as a legitimate disposition of permission for business was made after the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, the disposition of permission for business has become null and void. Therefore, the disposition of cancellation of permission for business cannot re-re-exploit the validity of the already lost permission for business, and it is inevitable to conduct a new administrative act with the same contents as the original administrative act.

Article 25 of the Food Sanitation Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Daegu Market Law Firm Doz., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 79Gu50 delivered on December 4, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

(1) If it is recognized as a source of lawsuit as a pre-trial procedure for filing an administrative litigation against the Reasons for Appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the administrative agency's unlawful or unfair administrative disposition should first be made, and the plaintiff's proof Nos. 3 and 44 (the document in question) as a source of lawsuit against the revocation of the business permission of this case can be seen as a petition sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on August 2, 1975, prior to the revocation of the business permission of this case, according to the records, it cannot be deemed as a source of lawsuit as a pre-trial procedure for filing an administrative litigation, and the above administrative disposition has become final and conclusive after the expiration of the period for filing an administrative litigation, and the Supreme Court's decision pointing this out is not appropriate in this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the requirements for the revocation of the business permission of this case or by violating precedents.

(2) As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 through 6, based on macroscopic evidence, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff, while running a restaurant business upon obtaining a permission for amusement restaurant business on May 14, 1974, the head of the competent tax office requested the defendant to revoke the permission for business; the defendant has set a certain period of time; the plaintiff has revoked the above permission for business on September 5, 1975 after demanding the plaintiff to pay the full payment of the above taxes; the plaintiff has paid KRW 7,33,200, which is a tax in arrears, and the head of the competent tax office has withdrawn the above request against the defendant on the same day; the plaintiff has withdrawn the above request for restriction on the permission for business; and on March 6, 1979, the defendant revoked the above disposition to the defendant on March 9, 1979 to revoke the permission for business; and the defendant on March 9, 1979, cannot withdraw the above permission for business.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition to revoke the above business permission is a legitimate disposition based on the relevant laws and regulations. As such, there was no legitimate objection, such as the plaintiff's lawsuit, so the defendant's disposition to grant the business permission to the plaintiff as long as the disposition becomes final and conclusive upon the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.

In the future, the validity of the already lost business license can not be re-established by cancelling the cancellation of the business license.

Therefore, in order to bring this in place again, new administrative acts with the same contents as original administrative acts should be conducted.

Therefore, the withdrawal of the request for restriction on government-licensed business against the plaintiff sent by the competent tax office to the defendant, or the withdrawal of the plaintiff's above revocation disposition cannot be considered as a final revocation disposition as seen above. Thus, the defendant's above reply against the plaintiff's above petition cannot be a separate administrative act, and thus, it cannot be an object of administrative litigation. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the withdrawal of administrative act, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the withdrawal of administrative act, and the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is not a requirement for litigation as seen above. Thus, the court below's dismissal

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)