Whether a person disqualified for permission for a petroleum retail business under the Petroleum Business Act can seek revocation of permission for the said petroleum retail business by acquiring another person's petroleum retail business.

A person who is disqualified for permission for a petroleum retail business under the Petroleum Business Act is not in the position to succeed to his status even if he acquired another person's petroleum retail business, and thus is not in the position to obtain a renewal of his permission. Therefore, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate right holder seeking revocation of permission for

Article 13(1)3 and 4 of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 12(3) of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 5(1) of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 9 of the Petroleum Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu175 delivered on October 16, 1979, 79Nu175 (Supreme Court Decision 1230 delivered on October 16, 197, 273Nu45 delivered on the Supreme Court Decision, 1(16)125 of the Administrative Litigation Act, 622No. 12314 delivered on the Official Gazette, and Article 8 of the Act on Burial and Graveyard, etc.)

Plaintiff

Head of Busan Metropolitan City;

The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On April 8, 1980, the revocation of the permission for the petroleum selling business made by the Defendant against Nonparty 1 who is the representative of the gas station located in the Busan East-dong (number omitted) Busan-dong (number omitted) shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

First, we judge the main defense of the defendant's attorney.

The plaintiff's attorney argued that there is no standing to seek revocation of the permission for the petroleum selling business in this case, and the plaintiff's attorney asserted in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in this case, and the defendant's representative of the (name omitted) station in Busan Dongdong-gu, Busan, on April 8, 1980, suspended his business for not less than 6 months in violation of Article 13 (3) of the Petroleum Business Act without a justifiable reason after he obtained the permission for the petroleum selling business in the attached form. The plaintiff did not commit the above violation and the plaintiff succeeded to the status of the non-party 1 by taking over the petroleum selling business in accordance with the permission for the petroleum selling business in his name from the non-party 1 on February 21, 1979, and transferred it to the non-party 2. The plaintiff was obligated to take the procedure for change of the name of the non-party 1's petroleum selling business in this case to the non-party 1, and thus the plaintiff sought revocation of the permission for the above disposition against the non-party 1.

However, according to Articles 12(3) and 5(1) of the Petroleum Business Act, a person for whom two years have not passed since his/her punishment was imposed in violation of the Petroleum Business Act was terminated or exempted, cannot obtain permission for a petroleum selling business, and pursuant to Article 13(3) of the same Act, if a person who obtained permission for a petroleum selling business falls under the above grounds, he/she may cancel permission for a petroleum selling business or order suspension of business for a fixed period of time. According to Articles 13(4) and 9(1) of the same Act and Article 8(5) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, a transferee shall succeed to the status of a petroleum selling business and obtain renewal of permission for a petroleum selling business from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Busan Mayor or Do governor, and the Plaintiff shall not be deemed to have the right to obtain permission for a petroleum selling business from the Plaintiff at the time of his/her transfer of his/her status to the Plaintiff without obtaining permission for a renewed status from the Plaintiff in accordance with the above legal doctrine.

Therefore, without examining the merits, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge) Maximum of Kim Young-il