A person having authority to cancel permission for grain sales business;

The cancellation of permission for the grain trade business is delegated to the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City as the authority of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but only the authority of the head of the Gu such as transfer, lease, and receipt of reports on the discontinuance of business under the current laws and regulations shall be re-entrusted to the head of the Gu. Since the right to cancel permission is not delegated, the cancellation of permission for the

Article 22(1) of the Grain Management Act; Article 18 subparag. 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Grain Management Act

Plaintiff

Head of Seoul Central Government

The disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff on February 20, 1980 to revoke the permission for the business of selling grain shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The fact that the Defendant, as an industry 1131-3918 on February 20, 1980, issued a disposition revoking the permission for the business of selling and selling grain to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff, in violation of the Food Grain Management Act and the Notice No. 2960 on the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, sold the government melted rice to a person other than the consumer and lent the grain to a person other than its own store in violation of the guidelines for the crackdown on the illegal distribution of grain, such as profits

The plaintiff's attorney asserts that the plaintiff's representative merely lent this government green book to the plaintiff at a sudden request of a neighbor, which was made under commercial practice, and is not for the purpose of profit-making, and therefore, the plaintiff does not violate the Food Grain Management Act or the Food Grain Illegal Distribution Control Act, and thus, the defendant's claim for the cancellation of the plaintiff's sales business license is illegal.

However, according to Article 22 (1) of the Grain Management Act, the cancellation of permission for a grain dealer is defined as belonging to the authority of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and Article 21 of the same Act and Article 18 (10) of the Enforcement Decree of the Grain Management Act provide that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries shall delegate matters concerning the cancellation of permission for the grain trading business belonging to his/her authority to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Busan Special Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor. Thus, the cancellation of permission for the grain trading business belongs to the authority delegated to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc., and the Local Autonomy Act Article 106 and Article 147 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act provide that the head of a local government may delegate part of his/her authority to the head of an administrative agency or local government under his/her jurisdiction or encourage the head of an administrative agency or local government under his/her jurisdiction under his/her jurisdiction under the direction and supervision of the Mayor. Thus, the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Therefore, the defendant, who is the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, has the authority to manage the affairs of cancellation of permission for the grain trade business within the jurisdiction of the Mayor legally delegated from the Mayor. In this case, the defendant's authority to cancel permission for the plaintiff's grain trade business is examined as to whether the defendant has been delegated from the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and Eul's evidence No. 8, which the defendant used as the ground for the defendant's authority to cancel permission for the plaintiff's grain trade business is clearly re-entrusted to the head of the Gu on February 1, 1974 only the authority of cancellation of permission for the grain trade business, such as suspension of business, transfer, lease and change of business facilities, and receipt of a report on discontinuance of business, among the affairs of permission for the grain trade business delegated by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and in this case, it is not clear by itself that the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor has the authority to cancel permission for the grain trade business as in this case, and there is no evidence that the defendant's authority to cancel permission for the above defect in this case is not any other evidence.

Thus, the defendant's revocation disposition of the permission for the grain trade business of this case would be an administrative disposition which does not require the propriety of the remaining points to be considered, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition is legitimate in the sense of seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the disposition as a matter of course. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition is justified in the sense of seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the disposition as to it

Judges Lee Young-soo (Presiding Judge)