A. Whether the Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Energy No. 101 of Sep. 10, 198) provides the criteria for administrative disposition, such as cancellation of permission for petroleum selling business or suspension of business (negative)

(b) The case holding that a revocation of permission for petroleum retail business is unlawful as a deviation from discretionary power, on the grounds that the selling of pseudo petroleum products with low carbon value caused by mixing of industrial gasoline due to negligence in management;

A. The provisions of attached Table 1 (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Energy No. 101 of Sep. 10, 198) of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act, which set the criteria for administrative disposition such as revocation of permission for petroleum selling business and suspension of business under Article 13(3) of the Petroleum Business Act, shall not be deemed to have the nature of laws and regulations, since they set the criteria for exercise of power within administrative agencies in carrying out the above administrative disposition.

B. The sanctions against the sale, etc. of pseudo petroleum products are subject to the administrative agency's binding discretion. Accordingly, in order to revoke permission for a petroleum selling business, the need for public interest by comparing the public interest arising from the act of violation with the disadvantage of the parties, depending on the content and degree of the act of violation, should be sufficient to justify the disadvantage of the parties. Thus, since permission for a petroleum selling business was obtained on October 13, 1982, the violation of the Plaintiff's act of violation of this case was the first violation, and the violation of this case was also a fall in the greenhouse value resulting from the mixing of pseudo petroleum products, which is high-point petroleum products, rather than the intended act for profit-making, and the Plaintiff's property loss, etc. is deemed to be due to the negligence in management, and thus, if there are circumstances such as the cancellation of permission for the most hot petroleum selling business itself by the administrative agency, the revocation of

Article 13(b) of the Petroleum Business Act: Article 22(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 101 of the Ministry of Power and Resources Ordinance of September 10, 198)

QuarryingS

Head of Daegu Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 89Gu1088 delivered on February 21, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to Article 13 (3) of the Petroleum Business Act, when a petroleum retailer falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Minister of Energy may cancel business permission or order the suspension of business for a fixed period of not more than six months. The provisions of the attached Table 1 (amended by Presidential Decree No. 101 of Sep. 10, 198) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which set the criteria for administrative disposition, set the criteria for the administrative disposition, do not have the nature of the law because they set the criteria for the exercise of power inside the administrative agency, and do not have the nature of the law. The decision of the court below to this purport is just, and the decision of the court below is without merit, on the ground that the disposition standards for 8.0 of the administrative disposition standards for the petroleum retailer 3.0 of the above attached Table 1 provide that the disposition standards for 8.0 of the administrative disposition standards for the petroleum retailer 3.0 of the above Table 1 have no external effect, and it does not have binding force against the general public on the ground that this disposition standards are not a law.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The sanctions for the sale, etc. of pseudo petroleum products under Article 13(3)6, 13(1)10, and 22 of the Petroleum Business Act are the act of discretionary power of an administrative agency. Accordingly, in order to revoke permission for a petroleum sales business, it should be limited to the extent that the necessity of public interest can be justified by comparing the public interest due to the act of violation and the disadvantage of the parties, according to the contents and degree of the act of violation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts as legitimate, and judged that the violation of this case was an initial violation since the plaintiff obtained permission for petroleum selling business on October 13, 1982, and the violation of this case also seems to be due to the fall in the value of the rooftop due to the mixing of the industrial gasoline, which is the high-point petroleum products, and the management negligence rather than the intentional act for profit, and that the plaintiff's property losses, etc. incurred due to the cancellation of permission are not significant. In light of the records, the cancellation of permission for the most significant petroleum selling business by the defendant exceeds the scope of its discretionary power and thus is unlawful. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding or decision is acceptable, and there is no error of law by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on discretionary power, such as the theory

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

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)