The mother law only provides for the provision that the authority of the central administrative agency may be delegated to the Do governor, etc. under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and if there is no provision concerning the re-election of such authority, whether the delegated administrative agency may re-endorse such authority in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act or Article 4 of the Regulations

The Petroleum Business Act only provides that the power-driven officers may delegate their authority to the Do governor, etc. under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and does not provide for the re-delegation of delegated authority, so the Do governor, etc., which is the delegated administrative agency, shall not re-endorse the authority delegated by the mother law unless there are other legal grounds concerning re-delegation of delegated authority. In this case, the latter part of Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act or Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority shall not be a ground provision concerning re

Article 5 of the Government Organization Act, Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority

Mag-ro

Cheongyang-gun

The disposition of suspension of petroleum sales for six months from December 9, 1988 to June 9, 1989 against the plaintiff on December 3, 1988 by the defendant shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The fact that the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for the Plaintiff on December 3, 198 (hereinafter in this case’s disposition) of selling petroleum like the order equipment is without dispute between the parties, and if the Plaintiff’s right to collect samples from Nonparty 2 of this case’s Ministry of Food and Drug No. 1 of this case’s Ministry of Food and Drug, No. 1 of this case’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, No. 2 of this case’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, No. 2 of this case’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, No. 3 of this case’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s Ministry of Food and Drug.

2. With regard to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful, the disposition of this case by the plaintiff is null and void because it was made by a person who has no legitimate authority to dispose, and the result of the gasoline quality inspection as seen earlier is not so. Thus, although the plaintiff's wife does not constitute a similar gasoline under Article 22 (2) of the Petroleum Business Act, it is unlawful for the defendant to take the disposition of this case although it is not a similar petroleum product, i.e., similar gasoline under Article 22 (2) of the Petroleum Business Act, it is unlawful for the defendant to take the disposition of this case, and the plaintiff's wife committed an act of mixing gasoline with gasoline without bad faith, and there is no damage to the plaintiff's wife, and the plaintiff's disposition of this case was committed in return for the large amount of funds, and currently supplying various transportation companies and gasoline, etc.

Therefore, with regard to whether the defendant has the authority to take the disposition of this case, according to Articles 12(1) and 13(3) of the Petroleum Business Act, both the authority to grant permission, cancel permission, and suspend the business is to the Minister of Power Resources. According to Article 23(1) of the same Act, the authority of the Minister of Power Resources under this Act may be partially delegated to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In accordance with Article 25(1) of the delegated Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the above authority of the Minister of Power Resources is clearly delegated to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor, and the Mayor of Metropolitan City and Do is delegated to the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do. However, there is no ground to deem that the above authority of the Governor with regard to the permission, cancellation of permission and

However, as seen earlier, the defendant asserts that the above Do governor's authority of permission, cancellation of permission and suspension of business was re-entrusted to the head of the Si/Gun under Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority and Article 2 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority (Presidential Decree No. 10955 of Dec. 11, 1982). According to Article 42 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority (Presidential Decree No. 10955 of Dec. 11, 1982), the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor may, upon approval of the delegated agency's head, delegate part of the delegated affairs to the head of the Si/Gun, under the conditions as prescribed by the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, again delegate the delegated affairs to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and Article 1836 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority.

However, as seen above, since the mother corporation Petroleum Business Act provides that the authority of the Minister of Energy under this Act may be partially delegated to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor (Article 23 (1)), the Presidential Decree based on this provision shall determine the scope of the authority delegated to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In this regard, the Presidential Decree shall not provide for the re-delegation of the authority delegated to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor, that part of the authority of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor may be re-entrusted to the head of Si or Gun, and even if such provision is provided, it shall not be deemed that the provision on delegation and entrustment of administrative authority which is not only applicable to the Presidential Decree shall not be a provision on invalidation without any legal basis. Thus, the provision on delegation and entrustment of authority which is not applicable

In addition, although the authority of the power resource director under this Act may be partially delegated to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Do governor under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and even if the authority of the head of the power resource director may be re-entrusted to the head of the Si/Gun under other special Acts and subordinate statutes, if the authority of the head of the Si/Gun can be re-entrusted to the head of the Si/Gun under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. However, Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act provides that the regulations on delegation and entrustment of administrative authority of the defendant are based on Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act, and the administrative agency may delegate part of its authority to another administrative agency or subordinate administrative agency, or entrust or delegate it to another administrative agency or subordinate administrative agency under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In this case, the delegated or entrusted agency can only delegate or re-endorse part of its authority to the head of the Si/Gun under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the Government Organization Act provides that the establishment of the State's power and sub-entrustment of the head of the government agency shall be re-delegation.

Therefore, the regulations on the delegation of Cheongnam-do affairs, which re-entrusted to the defendant with the authority to permit the petroleum selling business under the Petroleum Business Act, the authority to cancel the permission and suspend the business, shall be effective as the regulations on the delegation of authority, which is the legal attribution or change of the authority to transfer the specific authority to the delegated authority in accordance with the laws and regulations, in order to promote the internal convenience of administrative affairs.

3. Thus, the disposition of this case in the name of the Do governor (the permission disposition) is unlawful since the disposition of this case in the name of the defendant under the premise that the defendant's authority was delegated to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case in the name of the defendant is justified without any further determination on the remaining points, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party at the defendant's expense.

Judges Young-jin (Presiding Judge)