(a) Whether the revocation of the registration of the Government's retail sale of grain is an administrative disposition;

(b) The validity of an administrative disposition that has been delegated to a delegated agency under the name of the subordinate agency by again entrusting the delegated agency to a subordinate agency.

(a)The revocation of the Government's designation of grain and retail registration is an administrative disposition made in accordance with the Grain Management Act enacted for the purpose of controlling the supply and demand of grain and maintaining reasonable prices, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s notification under this Act, or orders

B. According to the provisions of Article 21 of the Grain Management Act and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry may delegate his authority under the same Act to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Busan Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor only. Thus, any authority delegated by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the above delegated agency by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry cannot be delegated or re-entrusted to the head of the Gu, etc. who is not the above delegated agency. However, even if the head of the Gu has been delegated with the authority to revoke the registration of this case inside the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the head of the Gu can not exercise it in the name of the head of the Gu of the defendant, and the disposition of this case made in the name of the head of the Gu

Articles 21 and 22 of the Grain Management Act, Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Grain Management Act

Plaintiff

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu

The registration of government grain designated by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on February 20, 1971 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

In this case, the defendant's registration of the plaintiff's retail sale of grain is not an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation, but an administrative disposition based on the general property law, such as the order of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry's order for improvement of distribution of grain in 1971, pursuant to Article 17 of the Grain Management Act and Article 2307 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry's notification based on the above Act, and the order of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry's order for improvement of distribution of grain in February 1, 1971, and the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City entered into a contract for non-registered designation under the above contract. Thus, the registration cancellation is merely an expression of the plaintiff's intent to cancel the above contract on the ground of the above contract's violation of the above contract provisions. Thus, even if the defendant's assertion itself is based on the above facts, it is clear that the registration and cancellation disposition are an administrative disposition of the plaintiff's authority to request cancellation of the above contract's pre-sale sale of grain in the name of the plaintiff (the plaintiff's order of this case and the plaintiff's order for cancellation of grain).

Therefore, I will look at the merits.

The Defendant’s revocation of the Government Grain Designation Retail Registration (Registration No. 60-3209) in the name of the Plaintiff on February 20, 1971 under the name of the head of the Gu, on the ground that the Defendant dealt with the Plaintiff in violation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s notice and the administrative instructions given in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor.

However, as the basis of the disposition of this case, the defendant asserted that the disposition of this case by the defendant against the defendant of the Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor's internal direction (the purpose of internal delegation of authority to cancel this case) is an administrative disposition of invalidity as stated above, since the plaintiff is against the Ministry's notification of February 3, 1971 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Seoul Metropolitan Government Mayor's administrative order on February 5, 1971, which prohibits the sale of general grain as a government grain-designated seller, and it was kept for the purpose of selling 40 persons in his store located in Yeongdeungpo-dong 3, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City for the purpose of selling 206. Thus, the defendant asserted that the disposition of this case by the defendant is an administrative disposition of invalidation as stated above.

Article 21 of the Grain Management Act and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are limited to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Busan Special Metropolitan City Mayor, or the Do governor. Thus, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc. who is delegated one copy of the above authority by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry cannot delegate any authority to the head of the Gu, such as the defendant, etc. although the plaintiff violated the above notification of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and the above administrative order of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc. and the head of the Gu has been delegated the above authority within the inside of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, as alleged above by the defendant, even though the plaintiff violated the above notification of the Minister and the above administrative order of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc., and even if the head of the Gu has been delegated the above authority within the inside of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor,

In this case, the retail retail revocation disposition by the defendant is an administrative disposition that is void without making a decision on the remainder of the disposition. Therefore, in the sense of seeking confirmation of invalidation of the disposition as a matter of course, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition is reasonable, and therefore, the lawsuit cost is accepted and decided as per Disposition at the cost of the losing defendant.

Judge Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)