(a) Where any one of the joint right holders files a lawsuit, a summary of the lawsuit by the other right holders;

(b) The meaning of "documents evidencing the import face or other import" under Article 7 (1) 2 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act;

(c) Where it is possible to cancel a beneficial administrative act;

A. In light of the peculiarity and expertise of the administrative act, a system that gives the disposition administrative agency an opportunity for inventory and correction of illegal administrative act. Thus, if a joint holder of a right who has a legal interest by the same administrative disposition has already instituted a legitimate source of lawsuit and had the disposition administrative agency given an opportunity for inventory and correction of the error, the other joint holder of a right may institute an administrative litigation without filing a lawsuit via source of lawsuit.

(b) The term “documents evidencing the import paper or other import fact”, which is a document evidencing the origin of a motor vehicle required for an application for new registration under Article 7 (1) 2 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, shall be limited to the case where the relevant motor vehicle is imported, and shall not be deemed as a document evidencing the import on the surface of the relevant motor vehicle, such as a assembly motor vehicle manufactured by importing or repairing the dismantled scrap metal, which is manufactured by restoring it to its original state.

(c) In revoking a beneficial administrative disposition, unless the applicant’s active deceptive act is involved in the administrative disposition, the administrative disposition may be revoked by comparing it with the disadvantage suffered by the party only when it is necessary for the important public interest that would justify the infringement of the rights and freedom of the people already assigned, or when it is necessary to protect the interests of a third party. Accordingly, the revocation that deviates from such a restriction shall not be exempted from being unlawful.

Articles 1 and 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 7(1) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 64Nu39 delivered on January 21, 1969, 82Nu432 delivered on April 12, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu127 delivered on July 12, 1983, 84Nu327 delivered on May 28, 1985

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Do Governor of Chungcheongnam-do, Attorney Go Yong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu713 delivered on August 31, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the unique characteristics, expertise, etc. of administrative acts, the principle of decentralization pursuant to the former Administrative Litigation Act and the former Sub-Lawsuit Act (amended by Act No. 15, Dec. 15, 1984; hereinafter referred to as "the Act prior to the amendment and repeal of the Act") is a system that gives the disposition administrative agency an opportunity for inventory and correction of illegal administrative acts (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu432, Apr. 12, 1983). Thus, if one of the joint holders of rights who have a legal interest by the same administrative disposition has already filed a lawful lawsuit and had the disposition administrative agency issued an opportunity to inventory and correct the error, other joint holders of rights can file an administrative lawsuit without going through the source of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 64Nu39, Jan. 21, 1969).

According to the records, it is recognized that Plaintiff 1, who has a legal interest in the disposition of cancellation of this case, has filed a lawful lawsuit against it. Thus, even if Plaintiff 2 had reached the lawsuit without filing a separate lawsuit against it, it shall not be deemed an unlawful lawsuit that is not transferred to this case. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4

According to the records, the non-party 1 imported non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 2's restoration of the above 1973's non-party 4's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's.

However, since an administrative act is not only the illegality or illegality, but also the existence of the above defect is objectively apparent, it cannot be viewed as a grave and obvious defect. Thus, the new registration disposition cannot be viewed as a valid and obvious defect, and if there is a defect in an administrative act, it can be seen as a matter of principle. However, even if there is a cause for cancellation, it is not possible to cancel the registration at any time, but there is a certain limitation on the right of cancellation in light of the legal order of the nature. In particular, in cancelling the beneficial administrative disposition, unless the applicant's active deceptive act is involved in the administrative disposition, it is not necessarily necessary to secure the rights and freedom of the people already assigned, or if there is a need to protect the interests of the third party, it cannot be viewed as an unlawful act. Accordingly, the cancellation of the above restriction cannot be viewed as an unlawful act of the plaintiff's new registration without being able to obtain the right of the party's own discretion at the time of the establishment of new registration from the public interest, and it is not necessary to recognize the safety of the plaintiff's vehicle as a new registration.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that the defendant's disposition of revocation was unlawful shall be justified even if it is somewhat insufficient in its explanation of its reasoning, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, incomplete hearing, or lack of reasoning. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no ground for appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal:

According to Article 18(1) of the Trade Act, if it is intended to use goods manufactured with raw materials, equipment, or materials thereof for any purpose other than the original purpose for unavoidable reasons, the approval of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy shall be obtained in advance. However, it is clear in the above legal provision that the goods subject to regulation refer to the goods imported for export or foreign exchange earnings pursuant to Article 17(1) of the same Act, and it is not the goods imported for export or foreign exchange earnings. Thus, it is obvious that the vehicle is not imported for the purpose of export or foreign exchange earnings. Thus, it is against the above legal provision without prior approval of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy in accordance with the above legal provision.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)

Kim Jong-dong cannot sign and seal on account of his overseas business trip.