Whether permission for a petroleum selling business and permission for the installation of a place where hazardous substances are handled constitutes a disposition related to each other in accordance with Article 18(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Permission for petroleum retail business and permission for the installation, etc. of a hazardous materials gas station shall be obtained both permission and permission for the establishment, etc. of a gas station, although the permission permission, purpose of permission and applicable laws are different separately from each other, in order to manage a gas station, the above concession constitutes a disposition related to each other under Article 18(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act. Therefore, where a concession is cancelled for the same reason as similar gasoline storage, if a concession is cancelled for all, one of them may immediately institute an administrative litigation against the other cancellation without going through an administrative appeal.

Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The Southern Deputy Chief Director

The permission granted to the plaintiff on October 29, 1985 for the installation of a hazardous materials handling place and the revocation of the permission for the installation of a hazardous materials mobile storage tank shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. First, we examine the main defense.

The defendant asserts that the revocation lawsuit of this case is unlawful as a lawsuit filed without going through an administrative appeal.

On the other hand, Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a revocation suit as in this case shall not be instituted unless it has undergone an administrative appeal. Meanwhile, Article 18(3) of the same Act provides that a revocation suit may be instituted without filing an administrative appeal in cases where either of the dispositions related to each other or dispositions progress by stages for the same purpose has already been decided on an administrative appeal.

However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the plaintiff did not appeal against the cancellation disposition of the permission.

On the other hand, without dispute over the establishment, Gap evidence 1-2 (written permission), Gap evidence 3-1 (written permission), Eul evidence 5-1 (written permission) and Eul evidence 2-2 (written order for disposal) were collected, and the plaintiff received (trade name omitted) gas stations from non-party 1 on February 17, 1982 from the non-party 1, and received permission from the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government under Article 12 (1) of the Petroleum Business Act (oil, diesel, light oil) and received permission for the installation of dangerous substance stations under Article 15 of the Fire Services Act and the permission for the installation of dangerous substance storage tank (hereinafter "permission of this case"), and notified the defendant of the cancellation of permission of this case on October 23, 1985, and the plaintiff's request for revocation of permission for the above petroleum selling business was dismissed for the same reason.

According to the above facts, although the above permission for the petroleum selling business and the above permission for the instant case have a different permission from the permission authorities, the purpose of permission, the applicable law, etc. However, in order to operate a gas station, all of the above permission for the above petroleum selling business and the permission for the instant case are due to the same reason that all of the above permission for the petroleum selling business and the permission for the instant case are treated as similar gasoline storage, so the above permission for the above petroleum selling business and the permission for the instant case constitutes a disposition related to each other under Article 18 (3) of the above Act, and the plaintiff has already been subject to an administrative appeal against the above disposition for the cancellation of permission for the above petroleum selling business, it is not necessary to separately

2.For the following merits:

If evidence and establishment of Gap's evidence Nos. 4-1, 2 (decision), 6-1, 2, 3 (Notice of Results of Examination of Quality), 3-1, 2 (Request for Home), 4-1, 2 (Restatement), and 3 (Appraisal Report) are collected, without any dispute over the above evidence and establishment, the plaintiff was unable to obtain permission from the non-party 1, 6-2, 3 (Notice of Results of Examination of Quality), 3-1, 4-1, 3 (Report of Results), and 4-1, 4-1, 3 (Appraisal Report). The plaintiff was unable to recognize that the defendant violated the above permission of the above petroleum selling business permission of this case and the above permission of this case, and if the non-party 2, an employee of the above gas station, was in violation of the purpose of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of disposition of permission of this case by collecting gasoline from the non-party 1, 400.

According to the above facts, the permission of this case is revoked when Nonparty 2, an employee of the plaintiff, violated the conditions of permission of this case by keeping similar gasoline and violated the conditions of permission under Article 23 subparag. 5 of the Fire Services Act. However, considering the fact that the violation was relatively insignificant, that the plaintiff did not deal with similar gasoline before the plaintiff, that many funds were invested, and that the plaintiff and his employees are means of livelihood, the revocation of the permission of this case cannot be deemed as an unfair disposition deviating from the scope of discretionary authority.

3. If so, the disposition of revoking the permission of this case is unfair and shall be revoked, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sung-il (Presiding Judge)