[1] Where there is legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition to revoke the registration of a factory regardless of the destruction of the factory building

[2] The case holding that a legal interest exists to seek revocation of the revocation of the registration of a factory, where the factory in a large city is relocated to a local area even after the registration of the factory was revoked, there is a benefit of tax credit and income tax reduction under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and a simple transfer procedure and preferential occupancy benefit under the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act

[3] The meaning of "a case where the head of the relevant administrative agency requests the cancellation of registration in accordance with the provisions of other Acts and subordinate statutes" under Article 21 subparagraph 5-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, one of

[1] In general, if the factory facilities are removed in some circumstances after the cancellation of factory registration and cannot be operated again through restoration, etc., this is not the object of factory registration, and even if the act of cancelling factory registration is remaining, there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of such disposition. However, in the above case, if there is any direct and specific interest protected by the pertinent Act or other Act due to the effective registration of factory, the parties have the legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition of revoking factory registration, regardless of whether the factory building is destroyed or not.

[2] The case holding that a legal interest exists to seek revocation of the revocation of the registration of a factory, where the factory in a large city is relocated to a local area even after the registration of the factory was revoked, there is a benefit of tax credit and income tax reduction under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and a simple transfer procedure and preferential occupancy benefit under the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act

[3] Article 21 subparagraph 5-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16532 of Aug. 9, 199), which is one of the grounds for revoking factory registration, provides that "if the head of the relevant administrative agency requests the cancellation of factory registration from the head of the relevant administrative agency pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes, the head of the relevant administrative agency may demand the cancellation of factory registration from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and the head of the relevant administrative agency requests the cancellation of factory registration from the head of the relevant

[1] Article 17 of the former Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (amended by Act No. 5827 of Feb. 8, 199); Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 17, 21, and 25 of the former Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (amended by Act No. 5827 of Feb. 8, 199); Article 21 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16532 of Aug. 9, 199); Article 62(1) and Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act; Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 17 of the former Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (amended by Act No. 5827 of Feb. 8, 199); Article 21 subparagraph 21-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16532 of Aug. 9, 19999)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Kim principal-type)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu6844 delivered on March 22, 2000

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

1. In general, if the factory facilities are demolished after the cancellation of factory registration and they cannot be operated again through restoration, etc., this is not the object of factory registration, and even if the act of revoking factory registration ceases to exist, there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of such disposition. However, in the above case, if there is direct and specific interest protected by the pertinent Act or other Act due to the effective registration of factory, the party has a legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition of revoking factory registration, regardless of whether the factory building is destroyed or not.

According to the records, the court below held that the defendant's revocation of factory registration of the plaintiffs, even if the factory is to be removed or removed by administrative vicarious execution, if the factory facilities in a large city are relocated to a provincial area, there are benefits of tax credit for facility investment and income tax reduction pursuant to Articles 62 and 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, as well as benefits of simple transfer procedures and preferential occupancy pursuant to Articles 21 and 25 of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, and even if the plaintiffs' factories were removed, there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of factory registration of the disposition of this case. This is consistent with the above purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in lawsuit. The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

2. The court below also held that the disposition of this case on the premise that it falls under the grounds for cancellation of registration by the head of the relevant administrative agency under Article 21 subparagraph 5-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16532 of Aug. 9, 1999), which is one of the grounds for cancellation of factory registration, is unlawful because the head of the relevant administrative agency may demand cancellation of factory registration by other Acts and subordinate statutes, and therefore the head of the relevant administrative agency shall demand cancellation of factory registration by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu. Since the head of the Seoul Regional Railroad Office does not fall under the grounds for cancellation of registration under Article 21 subparagraph 5-2 of the above Enforcement Decree, the request for cancellation of registration by the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu office does not fall under the grounds for cancellation of registration, and therefore, the above decision of the court below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for cancellation of factory registration.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)