A. The revocation of permission under Article 57 (1) 1 of the River Act is not so-called revocation, but so-called revocation.

B. Since Article 57 (2) of the River Act is a mandatory provision, a disposition revoking an existing permit pursuant to Article 57 (1) of the same Act without undergoing prior procedures pursuant to the same provision shall be deemed an unlawful administrative disposition, even though there are no unavoidable circumstances.

A. The revocation of permission under Article 57 (1) 1 of the River Act is not so-called revocation, but so-called revocation.

B. Since Article 57 (2) of the River Act is a mandatory provision, a disposition to revoke an existing permit pursuant to Article 57 (1) of the same Act without undergoing prior procedures pursuant to the same provision shall be deemed to be an unlawful administrative disposition, even though there are no unavoidable circumstances.

Article 57 of the River Act

Korea National Agricultural Corporation

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 68Gu183 delivered on August 27, 1968

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below on the plaintiff's ground of appeal is as follows. Since it is difficult for the plaintiff to construct a bank in violation of the order of the defendant to maintain a river, this case is legitimate pursuant to Article 57 (1) of the River Act. The cancellation of permission in accordance with Article 57 (1) 1 of the River Act should be interpreted as not so-called cancellation, but it is so-called cancellation of the permission. In other words, it is difficult for the court below to acknowledge that the court below's prior disposition should not be revoked without any defect in the existing permission disposition itself because the defendant's new circumstance occurred, and thus, it cannot be seen that the defendant's act of removing the permission's existing construction permission's new construction permission's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit's new construction permit.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)