Song Dong-dong

Large exhibition (Attorney Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

June 19, 1986

The defendant's disposition of revoking permission for petroleum retail business made against the plaintiff on December 24, 1985 shall be revoked.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. If Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Revocation of Permission) and 2 (Notification of Succession to Status) evidence Nos. 1-1 (Notification of Transfer and Takeover) 2-2 (Notification of Disposition Results) evidence Nos. 7-4 (Notification of Case No. 7-4) and 6 (Interrogation of Examination of Suspect) are all the purport of oral argument in each of the statement No. 1 (Report of Disposition No. 1) and evidence No. 1-2 (Report of Change to Status of Petroleum Sales) with no dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence No. 1 (Report No. 1) and evidence No. 4 (Report of Disposition No. 1) and evidence No. 2-1 (Report of Change to Status of Petroleum Sales) and No. 3 (Notification of Disposition) with permission No. 483-2) with no exception to Article 208 (Report No. 25) of the Korean Petroleum Business Act, the plaintiff's purchase of the same petroleum products with the previous summary order No. 201-3 (Report No. 208) with the Korean Petroleum Business on May 24, 198.

2. The plaintiff is a similar gasoline, but there is no difference between the original and the lower in its quality, and prior to the instant case, in light of the fact that a large amount of capital was invested and the revocation of the permission for the petroleum selling business to the plaintiff who operates the gas station of this case is too harsh, and this is an illegal disposition that deviates from the limits of discretion.

Before the judgment on the above argument, the right to revoke the permission of the petroleum selling business of this case belongs to the Minister of Energy under the name of Article 13 (3) of the Petroleum Business Act. The authority of the Minister of Power and Resources 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. Article 25 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the authority of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport concerning the cancellation of permission of the petroleum selling business of this case shall be delegated to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Do Governor, and the authority of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport concerning the cancellation of permission of the petroleum selling business of this case shall not be delegated to the Governor under the name of the Mayor of Chungcheongnam-do, Metropolitan City, or Do Governor, and the authority of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport concerning the cancellation of permission of the permission of the petroleum selling business of this case shall not be delegated to the Governor under the name of the Mayor of Chungcheongnam-do and the Governor.

3. If so, the disposition of this case without the authority of the defendant is to be null and void due to its illegality. The plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

July 10, 1986

Judges Bocheon-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)