Revocation of administrative disposition and disadvantage of the party

In order to revoke a defective administrative disposition, it shall be determined whether to revoke it by comparing and comparing the needs of the public interest to be revoked and the disadvantages suffered by the party due to the revocation thereof.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff Kim Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 72Gu85 delivered on November 1, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal by Defendant Attorney

Since a new legal order is formed on the basis of the establishment of an administrative act, even if it is a defective administrative act, it cannot be cancelled without permission even if it is a defective administrative act, and in case of making profits to the other party such as permission, patent, etc., such cancellation is always an infringement on the people's vested rights (or freedom). In such a case, it is reasonable to determine whether to cancel it by comparing and comparing the public interest needs to be cancelled and the disadvantage to the party due to cancellation. Under the above purport of the judgment of the court below, it is illegal for the plaintiff to extend the original permission, and the original permission to conduct the business was applied for permission without obtaining the approval for change of the purpose of the original permission even though the use of the newly permitted building was a house, and it is difficult to conclude that the business permission is unfair as permission for the illegal building, but it is not sufficient to conclude that the business permission is harmful to the public order only with the same reason, and therefore, the defendant's disposition of cancellation of the business permission cannot be viewed as an abuse of its discretionary power and thus, it cannot be justified.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. 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 Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)