The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where there is a defect in an administrative act, a disposition agency which has performed such an act may revoke it on its own even without a separate legal basis, but when it revokes a beneficial administrative disposition, it may revoke it only when it is highly possible to justify the disadvantage that a party to the public interest needs to suffer, such as the necessity of the public interest to revoke it and the infringement of the right to obtain benefits and the protection of trust and the stability of legal life, etc.

However, if the defect of the beneficial administrative disposition is due to the fact of the party or the application by other fraudulent methods, the party was aware that the profit from the disposition was illegally acquired and expected to be cancelled.

As such, it shall not be an abuse of discretionary power, even if the administrative agency does not consider it, as well as that it cannot invoke the trust interest in its disposition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du16339 Decided February 15, 2013, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Du16111 Decided November 27, 2014, etc.). 2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that it was difficult for the lower court to have violated the general principles of administration, including the principle of equality, proportionality, and the principle of protection of trust, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

3. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The judgment below

The reasoning and the evidence duly admitted by the court below reveal the following facts.

① On November 23, 2010, the Director of the Inspection Office of the Korea-U.S. Army Commander notified the Plaintiff of the commencement of an investigation on the “Liability of the Plaintiff relating to the discovery, follow-up management, etc. of military food foreign goods of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration at the time of service of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration” and there is no data to recognize that the Plaintiff was subject to a separate

(2) The Board of Audit and Inspection shall make the above statements to the plaintiff.