(a) The case holding that the procedure defects in the permission for occupation and use of the river site are merely those of the permission-granting agency and it does not constitute a ground for revocation of the permission;

(b) Effects of follow-up officers on administrative activities;

A. Even though the non-party who obtained permission to occupy and use a river site did not directly cultivate it and transferred the ownership or right to occupy and use the river site to the Plaintiff in violation of the relevant river law, and there is a procedural defect in the procedure that the permission-granting agency granted permission to occupy and use the river site to the Plaintiff, such defect is merely an object of permission by the permission-granting agency that granted permission to the Plaintiff without removing such unlawful state, and thus, it does not constitute a ground for revocation of permission to occupy and use the river site on the datum.

B. The subsidiary officer of an administrative act is a subordinate declaration of intent accompanying a principal declaration of intent, which is necessary and possible to carry out the principal act, and in particular, it is possible to attach a subsidiary officer to add a burden after the main administrative act has been carried out only when there are grounds or grounds for law, reservation of burden, or consent of the other party. Thus, it is invalid to order the other party to cultivate the land after resolving the dispute regarding the occupation and use between other farmers after the permission for occupation and use of a river site.

Article 25 of the River Act and Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Plaintiff et al.

Masan-gun

1. On January 10, 1989, the defendant revoked the part of the disposition revoking the permission for occupation and use of the river site in accordance with Article 191, 192, and 193-3 of the same Ri against the plaintiffs on January 10, 1989.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

As set forth in the text.

1. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5-1 and 5-2 (written permission and evidence No. 5-2, No. 5-3) without dispute over the establishment, the defendant, according to the delegation of authority by the Do governor of Chungcheongnam-do on March 16, 1987, as to the river site in Geum River, the river site in Geum River, which is the river site in Geum River, 75,710 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "river site in this case") and the purpose of occupation and use is to the plaintiffs, and the period of occupation and use was to occupy and use the river site until December 31, 190, but on the ground of defects in the procedure of the above permission and violation of the terms and conditions of permission by the plaintiffs, the defendant cannot be found to have changed part of the cancellation of occupancy and use permission (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

2. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is invalid because it was conducted by the defendant without authority, and even if it is not so, it should be revoked because it was illegal disposition without legitimate grounds for revocation. First, Article 11 of the River Act provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall manage the river. Article 25 of the same Act provides that the person who intends to occupy and use the river shall obtain permission from the Minister of Construction and Transportation. Article 7 of the same Act provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall delegate part of the authority under the same Act to the Do governor under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to Article 46 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation has no authority to permit the occupancy and use of the river site of this case within the river area of this case, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall delegate part of the authority to the Do governor under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (the Minister of Construction and Transportation's authority to permit the occupancy and use of the river site of this case and its revocation to the authority.

3. Next, as to whether the Defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate, the grounds for the Defendant’s disposition should be reviewed and seen in turn.

A. The defendant's disposition on the ground of the disposition of this case: (1) it is deemed that the plaintiffs' public officials in charge of the river in order to obtain permission to occupy and use the river site of this case, namely, their own ability to express their opinions, the local residents, the feasibility of the purpose of occupation and use, and the consent of interested parties, etc., were all satisfied; and thereafter, it is found that the plaintiffs did not have the above conditions; (2) the plaintiffs were transferred only to the owners on the registry of the river site of this case, and there was no right to do so in fact; (3) although the actual occupants of the river site of this case violated the above conditions of permission to occupy and use the river site of this case, the plaintiffs violated the conditions of permission to occupy and use the river site of this case as well as the public officials in charge of the plaintiff's mistake and the right to do so, and thus, the plaintiffs violated the conditions of permission to occupy and use the river site of this case and the right to lease the river site of this case to the non-party 2.

B. First, according to the above (1) statement of No. 2-1, No. 2-1, No. 2-2 (written opinion), and No. 3 (No. 1) as to the reasons for disposition of the above (1), the defendant reported that the public official in charge of investigating the conditions of permission prior to granting the permission to the plaintiffs met the conditions of permission. Accordingly, even if the defendant's prior to granting the permission to the plaintiffs, it is recognized that the investigation and report on the conditions of permission of the above public officials were false by mistake or deception (However, as acknowledged later, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiffs leased part of the above permission to others, but it cannot be concluded that the plaintiffs did not have any intention or ability at the time of the above permission to occupy and use the river site. Further, considering the above evidence and the purport of oral argument, the plaintiffs cannot be viewed as being aware that the public official in charge of occupying and using the river site of this case did not have the right to use and use the river of this case since they did not know that the above public official in charge of acquiring and using the river of this case did not know.

C. Next, as alleged by the defendant, although the non-party 1, who obtained permission to occupy and use the river site of this case from the defendant, did not directly cultivate it and leased it to others and violated the river law, it shall be deemed that the defendant removed such unlawful state and subsequently ordered the plaintiffs to grant permission to occupy and use the river site of this case, but without taking such measures, it shall not be deemed that the reason is the reason for cancellation of permission to occupy and use the river site of this case.

D. Next, as to the fact that the plaintiffs violated the conditions of permission by leasing part of the permitted river site to others, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiffs concluded a contract with Nonparty 3 on April 20, 198 for the purpose of leasing approximately 20,000 square meters out of the river site of this case with the permission of occupation and use of the river site of this case with the permission of occupation and use of the river of this case, considering the statement of No. 4-2 (farmland cultivation and lease contract) which is recognized as true by the testimony of the above witnesses, and the testimony of the above witnesses, the plaintiffs obtained the permission of occupation and use of the river site of this case from the defendant, although the plaintiffs did not actually occupy and use the river site of this case with the permission of occupation and use of the river of this case with the permission of the river of this case, it cannot be seen that the above conditions of permission of possession and use of the river of this case can not be deemed that the plaintiffs did not directly violate the above conditions of permission of the river of this case without any justifiable reason for the above prohibition of the above.

E. Next, it is difficult to believe that the above non-party who leased part of the river site of this case from the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs violated the river law, etc. among the disposition grounds of the above sub-paragraph 3 of the above above, as it seems to be consistent with the purport that the above non-party who leased part of the river site of this case was deep about the part for which the permission to occupy and use was revoked by the disposition of this case, as it is in light of the following facts. Rather, there is controversy as to whether the witness electricity, leap, leap, and spath, in particular, the plaintiffs were leased, and if the plaintiff was actually investigated at the site under the direction of the fact-finding, it is difficult to believe that the above non-party's testimony of the witness spathn, spathn, spathn, and spathn, and spathn in light of the fact that he did not know about the part for which the permission to occupy and use of the river of this case was revoked by the above disposition of this case.

F. Finally, among the multiple reasons cited by the defendant as the reason of the disposition in this case, the above disposition in this case, which appears to be a substantial reason for the disposition in this case, must be necessary and possible to perform the principal act as a subordinate declaration of intention accompanying the principal declaration of intent. In particular, the attachment of additional clauses to add the burden to the other party after the main administrative act was performed can be limited to the case where there is a ground or a burden is reserved, or where there is a consent of the other party. In this case, in order to resolve the dispute about the occupation and use of a river site with the other party after the permission of occupation and use of a river site was obtained, and the cultivation after the permission of occupation and use of a river site in this case exceeded the scope of an additional officer, and the cultivation after the order is null and void as it orders impossible matters. Thus, even if the above order is not implemented,

4. As long as the reasons for the disposition of this case cited by the defendant are examined and presented to be without merit. However, in cancelling a beneficial administrative disposition such as permission for occupation and use of a river site, if there are reasons for one of the above, unless the applicant's active action is involved in the action, it may be cancelled by comparing it with the disadvantage of the party only if it is necessary for the important public interest to justify the infringement of the rights and freedom of the people already assigned or for the protection of the interests of a third party, and therefore, the cancellation of such restriction must not be dismissed by itself. Thus, as acknowledged above, there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was an active fraudulent act in filing the application for permission for occupation and use of the river site of this case with the non-party 2, who cannot be deemed as a legitimate person under the River Act, and there is no material to view that there is a need for significant public interest to justify the infringement of the plaintiffs' rights other than that which have continuously caused a civil petition, and there is also no evidence that the plaintiffs' application for the disposition of this case against the non-party's claim for the above disposal of this case.

5. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is reasonable, and it is so accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Yu Soo-dae (Presiding Judge)