(a) Difference between delegation of administrative authority and internal delegation;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the return disposition of a written application for a tourism business plan under his/her own name was based on legitimate authority, such as misapprehension of legal principles concerning delegation

A. The delegation of administrative authority is recognized only when the delegation of authority is permitted inasmuch as an administrative authority transfers a specific authority to another administrative authority in accordance with the law to exercise the authority of the delegated authority, and thus it alters the legal attribution of authority. On the other hand, even in cases where the law does not permit the delegation of authority, the internal delegation of administrative authority has its subsidiary organs or subordinate administrative agencies actually exercise its authority in order to promote the convenience of internal administrative affairs. Thus, in cases of the delegation of authority, the delegated authority may exercise its authority in its own name, but in cases of internal delegation, the delegated authority can exercise its authority only in the name of the delegated authority, and cannot exercise its authority in its own name.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the return disposition of a written application for a tourism business plan under his own name was based on legitimate authority, such as misapprehension of legal principles as to delegation of administrative authority

(a) Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 4(4) of the Tourism Promotion Act, Article 55 of the same Act and Article 41(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10985 delivered on March 14, 1989 (Gong1989,630) (Gong1989,1507 delivered on September 12, 1989). Supreme Court Decision 88Nu12127 delivered on September 26, 1989 (Gong1989,1593) (Gong1990,414 delivered on December 27, 1990)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on August 1, 200

Heading Market

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu18168 delivered on May 22, 1991

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim for revocation of the application for approval of the business plan of this case is reversed and remanded to Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the Governor of Gangwon-do applied for approval of a business plan for a resort condominium business to the head of the Si/Gun within his jurisdiction on September 2, 1989 and ordered the return of the application for approval of a business plan when the location thereof falls short of the standard, and decided that the return of the application for the approval of a business plan for a resort condominium business should be made within the legitimate scope of authority after reviewing the legitimate requirements and procedure and the validity of the permission in dealing with the permission-related business by the Do Governor in the Si/Gun again on December 4, 1989, and considering the validity of the permission in dealing with the permission-related business by the Do Governor and the local circumstances, and the return of the application should be made unless there is any defect in legal requirements or procedure and it is determined that the permission should be reasonable.

The delegation of administrative authority shall be recognized only in cases where the delegation of authority is permitted inasmuch as an administrative agency transfers a specific authority to another administrative agency in accordance with a law to exercise the authority of the delegated administrative agency, and thus, it alters the legal attribution of authority. On the other hand, even in cases where a law does not permit the delegation of authority, the internal delegation of administrative authority is practically permitted by its subsidiary agency or subordinate administrative agency to exercise its authority in order to promote the convenience of internal administration of affairs. Thus, in cases of delegation of authority, the delegated administrative agency may exercise its authority in its own name, but in cases of internal delegation, the delegated administrative agency can exercise its authority only in the name of the delegated administrative agency, but only in its own name cannot exercise its authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Nu0985, Mar. 14, 1989; 89Nu671, Sept. 12, 1989

However, according to Article 4 (4) of the Tourism Promotion Act, the authority of the Minister of Construction and Transportation concerning the approval of a tourism business plan shall be determined to be vested in the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and Article 55 of the same Act and Article 41 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which stipulate the delegation of the authority, stipulate that the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall delegate the authority concerning the approval of a remaining tourism business plan except a general recreation business to the Do Governor, so it is clear that the authority to refuse the approval of the above business plan shall not be delegated to the head of the Si/Gun under the Tourism Promotion Act. Therefore, in order to determine that the disposition of the defendant's early market in this case is due to legitimate authority, the Governor of Gangwon-do shall allow the head of the Si/Gun to refuse the approval of the business plan under the provisions of Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act and Article 4 of the Regulations on the Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, and if not, it shall not be deemed that the above re-election constitutes an internal delegation and administrative authority under the Act.

Nevertheless, without examining these points, the court below determined that the disposition of this case was lawful by the person who has the authority to take the disposition of this case solely based on the above facts of recognition. This is a violation of law which affected the conclusion of the judgment due to incomplete hearing or misunderstanding the legal principles on delegation of administrative authority, and therefore, it is reasonable to point out this error.

In addition, among the judgment below, the plaintiff filed an appeal on the part concerning the claim seeking the advancement of the above application with the Governor of Gangwon-do, but this part is not exempt from dismissal, since there is no indication in the grounds of appeal in this part

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment of the court below on the claim for revocation of the application for approval of the business plan of this case shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. The remaining grounds of appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal with respect to the dismissal of appeal

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)