[1] Whether the provision on the principle of pre-determination or the limitation on the period of filing a lawsuit, etc. is applied to a lawsuit seeking nullification of an administrative disposition

[2] The method of exercising the authority where the administrative authority is internally delegated

[1] In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition, the provisions on the so-called principle of suppression or limitation of the period of filing a lawsuit do not apply.

[2] The delegation of administrative authority shall be recognized only in cases where a law permits the delegation of authority, since it shall transfer a specific authority to another administrative agency in accordance with the law, so it shall exercise the authority of the delegated administrative agency. On the other hand, even in cases where a law does not permit the delegation of authority, the internal delegation of administrative authority shall have its subsidiary organs or subordinate administrative agencies actually exercise its authority in order to promote the convenience of internal administrative affairs. Thus, in cases of the delegation of authority, the delegated administrative agency may exercise its authority under its own name, but in cases of internal delegation, the delegated administrative agency may exercise its authority only in the name of the delegated administrative agency, but only in cases of internal delegation, it shall not exercise its authority

[1] Articles 18 and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 3 (1), 4, and 7 of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 2 [Attachment 1] of the Regulations on the Internal Delegation of Affairs in Gyeongnam-do

[1] Supreme Court Decision 79Nu65 delivered on September 30, 1980 (Gong1980, 13300) 82Nu332 delivered on May 9, 1984 (Gong1984, 1035), Supreme Court Order 86Du21 delivered on November 27, 1986 (Gong1987, 240) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10985 delivered on March 14, 1989 (Gong1989, 630), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu671 delivered on September 12, 198 (Gong1989, 1507), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu579292 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong19792, 192)

Hanil Gas Co., Ltd.

Pool Market

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11544 Delivered on June 8, 1993

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu4533 delivered on April 29, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the invalidity of an administrative disposition, the provisions on the so-called principle of exhaustion or limitation of the period of filing a lawsuit shall not apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Nu65, Sept. 30, 1980; 82Nu332, May 9, 1984; 86Du21, Nov. 27, 1986); and there is no benefit to seek the confirmation of invalidity of the administrative disposition of this case.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. Delegation of administrative authority is recognized only in cases where a law allows delegation since it moves a specific authority to another administrative agency under the law to exercise the authority of the delegated agency. On the other hand, in cases where a law does not permit delegation of authority, internal delegation of administrative authority is actually made to its subsidiary organs or subordinate administrative agencies in order to promote the convenience of internal administrative affairs. Thus, in cases of delegation of authority, the delegated administrative agency can exercise its authority under its own name, but in cases of internal delegation of authority, the delegated administrative agency can exercise its authority only under the name of the delegated administrative agency, but it cannot exercise its authority under its own name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu10985, Mar. 14, 1989; 89Nu671, Sept. 12, 198; 91Nu5792, Apr. 24, 1992); and in cases of internal delegation of authority, the decision of the court below that the disposition of this case is unlawful and void.

3. According to the arguments, if the plaintiff obtained the permission for the liquefied petroleum gas filling business of this case from the head of macro-Gun, the permission is conducted by a person without authority, and thus, the plaintiff has no interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 76Nu1, Feb. 24, 1976). However, according to the records, it is evident that the plaintiff obtained the permission for other gas businesses under the former Gas Business Act from the Do governor on April 27, 1983 (the plaintiff is deemed to have obtained the permission for the liquefied petroleum gas filling business of this case following the implementation of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act). Thus, the plaintiff's argument on the premise that the permission of this case was obtained from the head of macro-Kun is without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)