[1] The validity of a non-assignment agreement to bring an action on an administrative litigation (negative)

[2] The case holding that the revocation of the designation of a newly established agricultural and fishery products wholesale market corporation during the existence of the existing agricultural and fishery products wholesale market constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretion, on the grounds that it is necessary to revitalize the newly established agricultural and fishery products wholesale market and to establish the distribution structure, and that it did not hold the entrusted auction as prescribed by the Act

[1] When the head of a local government re-designated the representative director of a wholesale market corporation as a wholesale market corporation of an agricultural and fishery products wholesale market established by the above head of a local government on the designated conditions, he/she shall not file a lawsuit or claim compensation for losses in whole against the moving of the wholesale market corporation and the cancellation of the designation or the order of closure in accordance with the policies on the distribution of agricultural and fishery products even during the designated period. However, the part concerning the special agreement to bring a lawsuit among the matters concerning the special agreement to bring a lawsuit shall not be permitted because the parties waive their right, which is the public right to the private country,

[2] The case holding that the revocation of the designation of a newly established agricultural and fishery products wholesale market corporation during the existence of the existing agricultural and fishery products wholesale market constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretion, on the grounds that it is necessary to revitalize the newly established agricultural and fishery products wholesale market and to establish the distribution structure, and that it did not hold the entrusted auction as prescribed by the Act

[1] Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 2 subparag. 4, Article 12, and Article 17 of the Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fishery Products for Food

[1] Supreme Court Decision 4293Dang60 delivered on November 2, 1961

Dong Branch Office and Corporation

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm Hong, Attorneys Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu38161 delivered on April 17, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the non-disclosure special agreement

As the court below acknowledged lawfully, when the defendant re-designated the plaintiff as a wholesale market corporation located in the agricultural and fishery products wholesale market located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "small and fishery products wholesale market") established by the defendant against the plaintiff on November 15, 1995, a person who has established an agricultural and fishery products wholesale market shall not file a lawsuit or claim compensation for losses in whole in accordance with the policies on the distribution policies of agricultural and fishery products, even during the designated period under subparagraph 2 of the designation term. However, the part concerning the non-committee special agreement is subject to the legal relationship of public law, the object of which cannot be arbitrarily disposed by the parties, and thus, it cannot be permitted as waiver of the right, which is a public right, to the state of private person, by agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 4293Da60, Nov. 2, 1961). Thus, the argument on the premise that such agreement is valid is without merit.

2. As to the deviation or abuse of discretionary power

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff was designated as the wholesale market corporation (former name: wholesale market corporation) located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "Cheongyang-si market") from November 11, 1975, and the fixed period of designation from the defendant on Nov. 15, 1995 to Nov. 198, 1998, and the plaintiff was not able to file a lawsuit or compensation for losses with the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new wholesale market corporation's new market corporation's new market.

According to the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit, and the fair market still remains in existence without closure, and the wholesale market corporation is an essential existence in the wholesale market as the actual operator of the wholesale market, and all other circumstances cited by the court below, the court below's determination that the plaintiff, the only legal wholesaler in the fair market, other than the agricultural joint market, which is the legal wholesaler in the fair market, abused the designation of the wholesale market corporation, is justified, and there is no error of law as to the scope of discretionary power such as theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)