Where a disposition to change a manufacture license under Article 14 of the Liquor Tax Act is not made in the name of a title inheritor, the benefit of a lawsuit to seek nullification of the said disposition by the true heir (affirmative)

Requirements and criteria for the administrative disposition of invalidation;

(a) Where a disposition to modify a manufacture license is taken under the name of a person who is not a true inheritor due to an erroneous inheritance report, the true inheritor has legal specific interests to seek nullification of the disposition in order to make a legitimate inheritance report.

B. In order for an administrative disposition to be called a void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and the defect is objectively obvious and objectively in violation of important laws and regulations, and in determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations should be examined from a teleological perspective and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself.

(a)Article 14 of the Liquor Tax Act;

(a) Supreme Court Decision 82Nu370 Decided February 14, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 65Nu83 Decided October 19, 1965

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Head of the District Tax Office

Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Counsel for the defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 84Gu30 delivered on May 15, 1984

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju High Court.

The Defendant’s Intervenor and his/her attorney’s grounds of appeal are examined together.

1. As to the first ground for appeal by the attorney, the first ground for appeal

According to Article 14 of the Liquor Tax Act, any person who has succeeded to the manufacturing business or the distribution business of alcoholic beverages, etc. shall report without delay to the head of the competent tax office, and in such a case, unless the inheritor who has reported his succession is disqualified, the person shall be deemed to have obtained the license for the manufacturing business or the distribution business. In this case, if the licensing office made a report of succession by asserting that he is the inheritor and based on the report, if the licensing office made a change of the license, the other person cannot obtain the license after making a report of succession again as long as the disposition remains effective. Thus, if a license change disposition is made in the name of a person who is not the true inheritor by an erroneous inheritance report, the true inheritor shall be deemed

According to the facts established by the court below, since the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2, and the non-party 3, etc., among the persons holding the license to manufacture the instant consignment, reported the inheritance of the deceased non-party 1's shares, which were not co-inheritors, and the permission was changed in the name of the defendant joining the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs of this case shall be deemed to be qualified to seek the confirmation of invalidity of the above license change disposition. Since the plaintiff did not report the inheritance without delay, it does not lose the qualification for the inheritance report as provided in Article 14 of the Liquor Tax Act because it did not lose the qualification for the above conclusion. The arguments are without merit since they dispute the eligibility of the plaintiffs from an independent view.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 4, and 5 by the attorney, and the grounds of appeal by the Intervenor joining the Defendant:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the license for manufacturing of this case was originally made in the name of the deceased non-party 1, non-party 4, and non-party 53; that the deceased non-party 1 died on May 27, 1973; that the plaintiffs, their wife and children, and the non-party 2, and the non-party 3 jointly succeeded to the property; on June 29, 1973, the above property inheritors transferred each inheritance share of the deceased non-party 1 to the defendant joining the defendant, who was the deceased non-party 1's children, and although the defendant did not inherit the deceased non-party 1's property with the waiver of the right to inheritance, the defendant reported the inheritance inheritance as if the deceased non-party 1 was the heir; and on July 7, 1973, the manufacture manufacture license of this case cannot be transferred under the Liquor Tax Act; provided that the permission for manufacturing of this case was null and void by the defendant's alteration of the license's heir's shares.

However, in order for an administrative disposition to be called a void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegal cause, that the defect is in violation of important laws and regulations, objectively apparent, and whether the defect is significant and obvious, it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law from a teleological perspective and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself (see Supreme Court Decision 65Nu83, Oct. 19, 1965).

In light of the fact that Article 16 (1) 5 of the Liquor Tax Act prohibits transfer of a license for manufacture of alcoholic beverages to another person on the ground of revocation of a license, and that only the succession to a license by an inheritor is exceptionally acknowledged under Article 14 of the same Act, there is no theoretical ground that the disposition of the defendant, which was changed in the name of the inheritor, is unlawful. However, in real transactions, the transferor applies for revocation of the license to the tax office, and the transferee transfers the license to the public official, at the same time, by the alternative method that newly applies for the license. In such a case, the licensing office received an application for revocation of the license by the transferor, and at the same time, received the application for alteration of the license from the supplementary licensee, and made it difficult to view that the above alteration of the license was made in the name of the heir, including the above alteration of the successor's right to inheritance, as well as that of the defendant's establishment of a legitimate business practice that allows the supplementary licensee to obtain a license (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 76Do3962, May 9, 1984).

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that the disposition of this case's license modification is null and void on the ground of illegality as stated in its holding, shall be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for invalidation of an administrative disposition as a matter of course, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the argument of the theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju