(a) If the correction is submitted to the president after the expiration of the correction period, whether the lawsuit is appropriate;

(b) The case holding that the revocation of permission for the retail business of grains is an abuse of supervisory authority;

A. Although the period for correction was determined and returned on the ground of the defect in the form of the president, even if the commissioner was not re-written within the period for correction, the adjudication administrative agency can be deemed to have been withdrawn as a matter of course, rather than by the expiration of the period for correction. Thus, if the adjudication administrative agency re-written the president who re-written the defect before deeming that the commissioner was withdrawn, it is reasonable to interpret that the plaintiff was recovered as legitimate.

B. Even if the general grain and the government grain mixed are displayed in the store for retail and traded grain in the market, the revocation of the business license is limited to the abuse of the supervisory authority or the deviation from the scope of the supervisory authority in consideration of the circumstances, etc. that had been engaged in grain retail business for 17 years, and that had been engaged in the 17-year grain retail business, but had not been in violation of the Grain Management Act, and is maintaining the livelihood of the six-year grain from the retail business.

(a) Article 3(4) of the Wonwon Act; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 22(1) and 17(1)7 of the Grain Management Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the head of Seongbuk-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu533 delivered on January 21, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

In a case where the correction period has been determined and returned due to the defect in the form of the president, even if the commissioner was not re-written within the correction period, the adjudication administrative agency shall be considered to have been withdrawn as a matter of course, but the adjudication administrative agency shall be deemed to have withdrawn the petition, so if the administrative agency re-written the president who corrected the defect before deeming the withdrawal of the petition to have been made pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, it is reasonable to interpret that the plaintiff was cured as lawful. In this regard, the judgment of the court below holding that the plaintiff of this case, which was submitted after the correction period, had gone through lawful filing of the suit, is just and there is no error of law in the theory of the lawsuit.

On the second ground for appeal

The judgment of the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff displayed the general grain and the government grain in the store for retail and traded them for the purpose of selling, and even so, the above mixed grain is not mixed by the plaintiff itself, but purchased rice mixed by the wholesaler for 17 years, and the plaintiff used the grain retail business for 17 years, but there was no violation of the Grain Management Act, and the defendant's disposition of this case which selected the disposition of revocation of the most severe business license as a sanction against the above violation was abused or deviates from its scope. In light of the records, the above disposition of the court below was just and there was no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the omission of reasoning or abuse of the supervisory authority.

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

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young