(a) Whether there is a benefit to seek revocation, even if an administrative disposition is revoked, if reinstatement is impossible (negative);

B. Whether there is a benefit to seek revocation of the disposition of revocation of the fishery license from the fishery right holder at the time of revocation of the license where the auction procedure has been completed following the revocation of the fishery license under Article 39 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252, Aug. 1, 1990) (negative)

A. Since a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an illegal administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking the restoration to its original state by removing an illegal state caused by the illegal disposition and protecting or remedying the rights and interests infringed or interfered with the disposition, there is no benefit to seek the cancellation, even if such cancellation is impossible to restore

B. Article 39 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990) provides that where a license of fishery is revoked, the mortgagee of the fishery right may request an auction of the fishery right, and where a request for auction is made, the fishery right shall be deemed to exist within the scope of the purpose of auction from the date of revocation of the license to the date of termination of the auction procedure, and when the decision of auction becomes final and conclusive, the revocation of the fishery license shall be deemed to have no effect. Thus, where the auction procedure is completed under the above provision, even if the revocation disposition of the fishery license which is the cause of commencement of auction is revoked, the validity of the completed auction procedure or the acquisition of the fishery right by the successful bidder shall not affect any effect, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the fishery right holder at the time of revocation of the license becomes unable to recover

A. B. Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 11131 (Gong1992, 1738) (Law No. 4548, Apr. 24, 1992)

Plaintiff

Do Governor of Gyeongnam-do

Busan High Court Decision 90Gu2796 delivered on February 26, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an illegal administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking the restoration to the original state by removing the illegal state caused by the illegal disposition and protecting the rights and interests infringed or obstructed by the disposition, so even if the illegal disposition is revoked, there is no benefit to seek the cancellation if the restoration is impossible.

Article 39 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990) provides that where a license of fishery is revoked, the mortgagee of the fishery right may request an auction of the fishery right, and where a request for auction is made, the fishery right shall be deemed to exist for the purpose of auction from the date of revocation of the license to the date of termination of the auction procedure, and when the decision of auction becomes final and conclusive, the cancellation of the fishery license shall be deemed to have not come into effect. Thus, where the auction procedure under the above provision is completed, even if the disposition of cancellation of the fishery license which is the cause of commencement of auction is revoked, the effect of the auction procedure already completed or the validity of the successful bidder's acquisition of the fishery right shall not be affected, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the fishery right holder at the time of revocation of the license cannot recover again

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the fishery license of this case is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit, is just, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, all of the plaintiff's grounds of appeal asserted in the grounds of appeal are disputing the validity of the revocation disposition of this case on the premise that the lawsuit of this case is legitimate, and therefore, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.