Whether a lawsuit seeking revocation of suspension after the lapse of the period of suspension of a petroleum retail business (negative)

If the execution of the disposition is terminated after the lapse of the period of business suspension specified in the business suspension disposition for the petroleum retail business, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of such disposition.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 13 of the Petroleum Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu326 delivered on March 9, 1982

Daesung Petroleum Co., Ltd. and two plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu728 delivered on July 8, 1981

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The plaintiffs' main lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As legally determined by the court below, if the defendant issued an order to suspend the business of the gas station from November 3, 1980 to November 7, 1980, and the execution of the order is terminated after the period of suspension of business specified in the order to suspend the business of the gas station, the plaintiffs shall not have any legal interest in seeking cancellation of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances. In this regard, the court below shall accept delegation of authority under Article 23 of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act by the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, upon delegation of authority under Article 5 (1) of the Rules of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Article 13 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act, the criteria for cancellation and suspension of business under Article 13 (3) of the same Act are as attached Table 1, and if the defendant violated the order to suspend the supply and demand of petroleum, etc. under Article 17 of the Petroleum Business Act which caused the disposition of this case, the plaintiffs shall not be deemed to have the same legal interest in the case of this case.

However, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regulation on Handling of Petroleum Selling Business is merely an internal administrative guidelines for the defendant with the nature of administrative orders that prescribe detailed matters such as criteria and methods for processing permission for petroleum selling business and the report of selling places. Thus, in the above rules, even if there is a concern that the plaintiffs would be subject to aggravated sanctions pursuant to this provision in the future, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs' above disadvantage is a legal disadvantage, and thus, it cannot be said that there is a legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case, and it cannot be said that there is a possibility that the defendant's similar disposition might be repeated due to the same reason as the original decision in the future. Thus, the plaintiffs' legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case can not be said to be the same as the original decision.

Thus, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of cancellation of the business suspension disposition of this case is illegal without legal interest in seeking its revocation. The court below's decision to enter this case as legitimate and the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest of the non-party in the administrative litigation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the argument is justified

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)