The validity of the closure of an agricultural and fishery products wholesale market and the revocation of the designation of a designated wholesale market by the head of the Gu.

According to the provisions of Articles 12 (3) and 17 (1) of the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products, the authority of cancellation of approval, which is the closing of an agricultural and fishery products wholesale market and the designated wholesale market wholesale market, shall be the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the above authority shall not be delegated to others in the same Act or the Enforcement Decree, etc., but if the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who has received a request for cancellation of designation, who is the wholesale market closure permission and the designated wholesale market closure permission from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, transfers it to the Administrator of the Fisheries Administration without making a decision on whether or not the above permission and cancellation is granted, and if the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City transfers it to the Administrator of the Fisheries Administration and approves

Article 63 (2) of the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products

Central Agricultural and Fishery Products Market Corporation

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

(1) On June 8, 1981, the disposition that the Defendant closes against the Plaintiff on September 17, 1981, the fishery species cancer wholesale market in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government located in 115 of the 8-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and revoked the designation of the designated wholesaler as of September 17, 1981 shall be revoked.

(2) Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) The defendant issued an administrative disposition to the plaintiff on June 8, 1981, and there is no dispute between the parties, and the defendant's statement in the above statement Nos. 3 (Notice of Disposition), 4-1 (Report of Change of Name), 2-2 (Report of Change of Name of Representative), 9-1, 2, 3 (Revocation of Designation as Wholesale Market Closure and Designated Wholesale Market) and 4 (Public Notice) are all purport of the oral argument, the defendant, on the ground that the defendant violated the above 17-181 sites No. 8, 352 of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, 1976 and the above 2-story concrete 4, 1,700, 1,700, 1,700, 2-2, 3, 3, 8, 3, 8, 3, 4, 8, 8, 1, 3, 4, 8, 3, 8, 3, 4, 8, 1, 8, 1, 8, 3, 3, 3, 4.

(2) However, Article 12 (3) of the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products provides that "if a person who establishes a wholesale market intends to close the wholesale market, he/she shall obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries prior to the closure of the wholesale market, the person who establishes the wholesale market shall not obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the above designation shall be subject to prior approval from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries." Article 17 (1) of the same Act provides that "the person who opens the wholesale market shall obtain approval from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries," and Article 63 (2) of the same Act provides that "if the person who operates the wholesale market violates this Act or any order or disposition issued under this Act, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries shall revoke the designation of the above wholesale market without the permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the person who establishes the above wholesale market without the permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries shall be subject to revocation of the designation of the above designation without the permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, which is a legal basis for the cancellation of the designation of the above designation."

(3) Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which was revoked on the ground that the disposition of this case was made in violation of its disposition authority as seen above, is justifiable without any other argument of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing defendant and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-sung