A. Criteria for determining whether an act of an administrative agency constitutes an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation

(b) Whether a disposition to modify a license following the inheritance of a manufacture licensee is an administrative disposition;

(c) Requirements for recognizing the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition

(d) Action to confirm the invalidity of a disposition to change the name of manufacture licensee on the basis of a forged renunciation of inheritance and benefits of confirmation;

A. The "disposition by an administrative agency" under Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act refers to an act of an administrative agency under public law, such as ordering the establishment of rights or obligations pursuant to laws and regulations, imposing a burden on a specific matter, and giving rise to other legal effects. Thus, whether an act of an administrative agency constitutes an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation, the purpose and effect of the administrative litigation system or the function of protecting the rights of the people by the judicial power, in addition to the nature and effect of the act, should be determined with the objective of the administrative

B. The purport of Article 14(2) of the Liquor Tax Act is that if the report on the inheritance of a manufactory, etc. is filed, the report does not bring about a legal effect that has obtained a licence for the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, etc. as the effect of the report, and if there is no reason prescribed by the same paragraph, the report is deemed to have obtained a license for the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, etc. and the license for the manufacture of alcoholic beverages must be changed to the reporter's name. Therefore, the defendant's acceptance of the inheritance report of the manufacture of the instant alcoholic beverages and the change of the license for the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, which renewed the license

C. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of administrative disposition, the benefit of confirmation is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to obtain judgment in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger, and the apprehension and risk.

D. In a case where the Defendant (the head of Si/Eup/Myeon office) who was responsible for the management and operation of the main place of manufacturing that the Plaintiffs owned by the inheritee, forged the Plaintiffs’ renunciation of inheritance, etc. and reported inheritance in its name, and the Defendant (the head of Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon office) who believed this true modification of the instant manufacture license in the name of Dong, if the Defendant, etc. dispute the validity of the Plaintiffs’ succession of the instant manufacture licenses and the administrative disposition, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit to nullify the alteration of the manufacture

(d)Article 14 of the Liquor Tax Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act,

A. Supreme Court Decision 67Nu44 delivered on June 27, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 79Nu56 delivered on November 13, 1979

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 6 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Head of the District Tax Office

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

Gwangju High Court Decision 80Gu73 delivered on June 29, 1982

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

1. The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant litigation performer and the defendant assistant intervenor are also examined.

The administrative disposition under Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act is an act of the administrative agency under public law, which directly is related to the rights and duties of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or obligations under the Acts and subordinate statutes or causing other legal effects with respect to a specific matter (see Supreme Court Decision 67Nu44, Jun. 27, 1967). Thus, if an administrative agency's act constitutes an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation, it shall be judged for a purpose concurrently taking into account the nature and effect of the act, the purpose of the administrative litigation system or the function of protecting the rights of the people through judicial authority, as well as the modification of the license under Article 14 (1) of the Liquor Tax Act. Thus, the court below's decision that a license of the manufacturer of alcoholic beverages, liquor, main, national or subsidiary liquor, manufacturing business of alcoholic beverages, or local government's manufacture or distribution business should be reported to the head of the competent tax office without delay. The decision of the court below to the effect that the defendant's report of modification of license under Article 10 subparagraph 1, 2, 5 through 7 and 1111 of the Liquor Tax Act does not necessarily constitute an administrative disposition.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the invalidity of administrative disposition, the benefit of confirmation is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a confirmation judgment in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status and the apprehensions and risks (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu56, Nov. 13, 1979). According to the records, the Plaintiffs, the heir of the manufacture license of this case, left the Defendant’s assistant intervenor responsible for the management and operation of the main funeral (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu56, Nov. 13, 1979). The Defendant reported the inheritance in the name of the Defendant’s assistant intervenor by forging the Plaintiff’s renunciation of inheritance, etc., and believed that it is true, changed the Plaintiff’s title of the manufacture license of this case in the name of the Defendant’s assistant intervenor, and it is obvious that the Defendant and the assistant intervenor dispute this issue with respect to the inheritance of the manufacture license of this case and the validity of the administrative disposition of this case. Accordingly, the lower court did not err in the misapprehension of

3. The ground of appeal No. 3 by the defendant litigation performer and the ground of appeal No. 4 by the defendant assistant intervenor as well as the defendant assistant intervenor's grounds of appeal No.

According to the evidence of the court below, the plaintiffs and the non-party 2 were jointly inherited due to Gap's death on May 27, 1973, the right to 1/3 of the above Kim Byung-ho's joint signature box No. 21 of the deceased Kim Byung-ho's name (the plaintiffs and the non-party 2, who were their wife Kim Jong-hee's birth) and the above non-party 8's signature and seal impression No. 7 of the court below's testimony No. 7 of the plaintiff Kim Jong-ho's name (the plaintiff Lee Jong-ho's signature and seal No. 7 of the plaintiff Kim Byung-ho's signature No. 8 of the plaintiff Kim Byung-ho's signature No. 1 of the plaintiff Kim Byung-ho's signature No. 7 of the plaintiff Kim Byung-ho's signature No. 1 of the plaintiff Kim Byung-ho's name (the plaintiff's signature No. 7 of the plaintiff Lee Byung-ho's signature No. 1 of the plaintiff Lee Byung-ho's name). 7 of the plaintiff's evidence No. 7 of this case

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed unless the decision of the court below contains any error in the rules of evidence or in violation of the rules of evidence, and without examining any other grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court, which is the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)