Main Issues
(a)the method in which administrative authority is delegated and in the case of internal delegation;
(b)where delegation of administrative authority is allowed;
Summary of Judgment
(a) Delegation of administrative authority is a change in the legal attribution of the authority to transfer a particular authority to the delegated authority under law, and its internal delegation is that to the subsidiary authority or subordinate administrative authority in fact in order to promote the convenience of internal administrative affairs of the administrative authority. Therefore, in the case of delegation of authority, the delegated authority may exercise its authority in its own name; or in the case of internal delegation, the delegated authority may only exercise its authority in its own name, but not in its own name.
(b) insofar as the delegation of administrative authority changes the legal attribution of its authority, it shall be recognized only when law permits that delegation.
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 13(3) and 23(1) of the Petroleum Business Act; Article 25(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act; Article 25(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act; Article 2-1-49 of the attached Table 1-7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum
Plaintiff-Appellee
Plaintiff
Defendant, the superior, or the senior
Attorney Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu66 decided July 10, 1986
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The delegation of so-called administrative authority is a change in the legal attribution of the authority to transfer a specific authority to the delegated authority in accordance with the law, and its internal delegation is to have the subsidiary authority or subordinate administrative authority practically exercise its authority in order to promote the convenience of internal administrative affairs of the administrative authority. Therefore, in the case of the delegation of authority, the delegated authority may exercise its authority in its own name. However, in the case of internal delegation, the delegated authority can only exercise its authority in its own name, or in the case of internal delegation, it cannot be done in its own name.
In addition, as long as the delegation of authority is changed in the legal attribution of authority, it shall be recognized only when the law permits the delegation of authority.
According to Article 13(3) of the Petroleum Business Act, a power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power, Article 23(1) of the same Act, and Article 25(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power shall be delegated to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor. Meanwhile, according to attached Table 1-49 of attached Table 1 of Article 2 of the Regulations on the Internal Delegation of Duties (Evidence No. 9) of the Cheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power-driven power is delegated to the head of the Si/Gun, and even according to Article 7 of the same Act, the head of the Si/Gun bears the authority to cancel permission under his own name.
In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's disposition of this case was invalid by a person without authority, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)