Whether revocation of business permission for the reason that some unauthorized buildings are business places is unfair or not;

In the event that an unauthorized building and a building requiring permission are located at the place of business, even if only the building without permission falls short of the standards for the manufacturing business of the two categories under the Food Sanitation Act on the sole basis of the building with the exception of the building without permission, the order to improve the facilities is not issued and the revocation of the business is immediately revoked without the order to suspend the business. Therefore, the administrative disposition violates the people's vested rights.

Article 42 of the Building Act (Law No. 2434), Article 26 of the Food Sanitation Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Nu214 delivered on May 11, 1976 (Daad 11282, Supreme Court Decision 24 ②6, Decision 1(288), Decision 1(281), Decision 538No9161 delivered on May 11, 197

Plaintiff

Gwangju City Mayor Public Health Center

The disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff on October 26, 1974 to revoke the permission for the two manufacturing businesses of Korea shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

On January 12, 1974, the Defendant issued two kinds of business permission to the Plaintiff on January 12, 1974; the part of the Plaintiff’s building, which is the Plaintiff’s place of business, is clearly identified as an unauthorized building; the area of the building alone falls short of the facility standards for two kinds of manufacturing businesses under the Food Sanitation Act; and the above business permission cannot be granted to the Plaintiff on October 26, 1974 on the ground that the first place of business was defective administrative acts; and the above business permission was revoked against the Plaintiff on October 26, 1974 on the ground that the above disposition of revocation is illegal; thus, the Plaintiff’s attorney claimed that the above disposition of revocation is unlawful; therefore, the Plaintiff’s agent’s entry of the No. 15 No. 15 without dispute on establishment and the purport of oral argument as to the result of on-site inspection of the Plaintiff’s two manufacturing places of business, and the Plaintiff’s two or more places of business under the Food Sanitation Act’s Article 200 No. 3 of the above Building Act should be established without permission.

However, with regard to the issue of whether the permission for business can be cancelled arbitrarily on the sole basis of the above reasons, the cancellation of a false administrative disposition can only be cancelled if the contents of the administrative disposition are imposed on the people, such as an order of dismissal or prohibition, or restriction, suspension or deprivation of the rights or interests of the people. Thus, the cancellation can only be freely cancelled on the ground that the administrative agency can remove disadvantage or grant benefits to the people. On the contrary, in the case of an administrative disposition that causes the other party to the establishment of the right to restore the rights and freedom, such as the permission, the cancellation may not be cancelled arbitrarily on the ground of any defects in the administrative disposition, as long as it infringes on the rights and freedom of the people, and if the administrative agency violated the above order of removal or suspension of business, the administrative agency's order of removal can only be cancelled on the ground that the defendant violated the above order of removal or suspension of business within the second period of time as well as the above provisions of the Food Sanitation Act. Thus, if the defendant intends to cancel the above permission for business of the plaintiff, it is not necessary to cancel the above order of the business.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition to revoke the permission for the manufacture of two kinds of parts for the reason that part of the place of work exhibited has been extended without permission and the remaining part does not meet the facility standards cannot be illegal disposition.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the above cancellation disposition shall be accepted with reasonable grounds, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant as the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)