Grounds for revocation of a license for double business of the same facility (motor vehicle) or subsequent license;

It is not naturally possible to revoke the permission that has been granted twice to the same facility (motor vehicle) only with the reason that the permission for the mobile restaurant business has been granted.

Article 26 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu162 delivered on July 22, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A person whose rights or interests have been infringed due to an administrative agency's unlawful or unjust disposition is ultimately entitled to seek a change of cancellation of the disposition against the administrative agency in question through an administrative litigation, and the person who has obtained a restaurant business permission is bound to establish a new living relationship based on the business permission, and thus, once he has granted a business permission, he will cause enormous damages to the business operator and the third party related thereto. According to the records, the defendant's disposition of this case is clearly cancelled the business permission for the plaintiff who obtained a restaurant business permission lawfully from the defendant on the ground that the permission overlaps with the business permission granted by the head of the non-party among the non-party, before the permission was granted, the plaintiff who had already been engaged in the restaurant business by the business permission and was infringed upon the rights or interests due to this disposition, and there is no legal principle that the act of permission received by a single facility after being granted a dual business permission, and there is no interest to seek cancellation of the decision of the court below, and therefore, the plaintiff's objection to this disposition is justified.

2. On September 17, 1977, the court below determined that Non-party 1 was operating a restaurant business facility on the vehicle (vehicle registration number omitted) and was operating the restaurant business installed on the same vehicle as that of the head of the Gu on December 26, 197, with the permission for the mobile restaurant business from the defendant for the concealment of it, and that the non-party 2 was operating the restaurant business on November 1, 1978, and the non-party 2 transferred each business permission to the plaintiff on September 23, 1979, and the plaintiff was operating the restaurant after receiving the permission for the change of the operator's name as of the acquisition date to the plaintiff at the same time. According to the records, it is clear that the defendant revoked the permission for the business on the ground that the business of this case was conducted twice for the same facility as already permitted.

However, if the facts are the same, since the business facilities of this case are installed on a motor vehicle that can move the business place, it is obvious in light of the legal principles that the first person who obtained permission discontinues the business under the permission, or it is possible to obtain a new permission when the replacement facilities continue the business by replacing the new facilities, and if the replacement facilities meet the criteria for the business permission, it cannot be viewed that the suspension of the first permitted business or change the business place or facilities, and if the business operator did not obtain a permission for the change of the latter part of Article 23(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, or did not report the discontinuance of business under Article 23(4) of the Food Sanitation Act, the permission-granting agency can cancel the business permission in whole or in part under Article 261 of the Food Sanitation Act, and thus, the permission-granting agency can not automatically cancel the permission after the same facilities only because the permission was obtained twice. It is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)