Whether an existing person subject to permission for the grain processing business who has suffered disadvantage due to a new disposition of permission for the grain processing business against a third party has standing to sue to seek revocation of such disposition (negative)

The effect of a grain processing business license is merely an order to cancel the prohibition and its effect also brings about the recovery of the operator's oil. Thus, the freedom of business does not directly acquire an exclusive property right from the person subject to the permission of the grain processing business, but it is nothing more than granting the person subject to the permission whose restriction on the operator's oil was cancelled indirectly because the Act generally limits the freedom of business for the purpose of securing national food and stabilizing the national economy, and stabilizing the national economy. Thus, the defendant joining the defendant does not have any legal basis to regard the area subject to the permission of the grain processing business of this case as a place subject to the statutory restriction so that the permission of new grain processing business cannot be granted. Thus, even if the plaintiff's interest in the grain processing business of this case already permitted has been actually reduced due to the permission disposition, the disadvantage is merely the mere opposite result from the permission disposition of the grain processing business of this case, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff's right has been infringed by the law. Thus, the plaintiff has no legal interest

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 16 of the Grain Management Act

Han Sung-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Assignment

Appellee 00

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1466 delivered on December 29, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff had already been engaged in the business with permission for grain processing business from the defendant, and the defendant had determined that the defendant had no legal interest in claiming the revocation of the disposition for permission for the grain processing business of this case, since the above disposition for permission for the grain processing business of this case was against the Food Processing Business Act and the Ordinance on the Administrative Order of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ordinance on the Procedure for Permission for the Food Processing Business of Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Seoul-do, and the defendant sought the revocation of the permission for the grain processing business of this case, it cannot be deemed an unlawful disposition against the above intervenor's violation of the Grain Management Act or the above Ordinance, etc.

The freedom of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries is included within the scope of freedom guaranteed to the citizens under the Constitution, and the freedom of business can be exceptionally restricted by law only when it is necessary for the maintenance of order and public welfare. Thus, even if the plaintiff is a person who has obtained permission for grain processing business under Article 16 of the Grain Management Act, and even if the plaintiff is a person who has obtained permission for grain processing business under the same law, it is not a place where the law is limited so that the right to permit new grain processing business cannot be granted to the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the case without reasonable grounds for deeming that the remaining 4 Riri is a place where the right to permit new grain processing business cannot be granted to the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the case, as stated in the court below, since the grain processing business of this case is not a formative act of establishing the right to operate the business, but merely an order to cancel the prohibition is the effect of permission. Thus, the freedom of business is not a case where the Act acquires exclusive property rights to the person of the direct grain processing business (the plaintiff).

Thus, even if the plaintiff's interest in the grain processing business is actually reduced due to the disposition of permission for the grain processing business of this case, this disadvantage is merely a mere reflective result due to the disposition of permission for the grain processing business of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's right is infringed by law. Thus, the plaintiff has no legal interest in claiming the cancellation of the disposition of permission for the grain processing business of this case against the defendant joining the defendant, and the court below's disposition which dismissed the lawsuit of this case as unlawful in the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or violation of law. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won