(a) Whether or not the regulations of the Si may restrict the distance to the place where grain-processing facilities can be installed;

(b) Whether there is a benefit to seek the cancellation of a disposition by an existing grain processor on the ground that his/her benefit is reduced by an administrative disposition;

(a) Unless otherwise provided in related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Grain Management Act, the distance limitation on the place to install grain-processed facilities, shall not be imposed by the established rules of the Si;

B. A grain processing business license is an order to cancel the police prohibition, not an exclusive property right to the person subject to permission, but an indirect benefit is granted to the person subject to permission, and thus, even if the profit of the person subject to permission already reduced by any administrative disposition, it is a de facto reflective result, not a violation of the person's right, and thus there is no legal interest to seek the revocation.

Article 16 of the Grain Management Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Nu97 delivered on August 22, 1963

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu331 delivered on November 20, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff had no legal interest in filing a lawsuit to revoke the revocation of the revocation of the disposition of this case, since the plaintiff had already been engaged in the business after obtaining permission for the divided business from the defendant, and the defendant had a relevant law, such as the Grain Management Act, the Building Act, etc., approved the relocation of a divided business facility at a location that does not keep a distance of 500 meters from the place of the plaintiff's business to the intervenor joining the defendant, and again revoked the disposition of the removal approval.

The freedom of business is included within the scope of freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, and it is merely an exception that the freedom of business can be restricted by law only in cases necessary for the maintenance of order and public welfare. Thus, since there is no provision that can restrict the distance to the place of a grain processing facility for the same reason as the main text of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Grain Management Act, the established rules of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which provide the restricted distance, cannot limit the freedom of business guaranteed by the Constitution. Furthermore, a person who is granted permission for a grain processing business under Article 16 of the Grain Management Act (Article 16) is carrying out the business of this case. Although the plaintiff is a person who is subject to permission for a grain processing business under Article 16 of the Grain Management Act, the permission processing business of the plaintiff is merely an act of establishing the right of the police prohibition and its effect is merely an act of ordering the plaintiff to cancel the permission's business. Thus, the freedom of business of this case does not constitute a case where the plaintiff acquires exclusive property rights to the person subject to permission for the business (the plaintiff) and the defendant's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's.

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

Justices Park Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)