(a) The process history and the power of disputes over defective administrative acts;

B. Whether a disposition of permission for a liquefied petroleum gas sales business is void as a matter of course on the condition that a house owner’s consent is obtained within a radius of 25 meters prior to the commencement of the business (negative), and whether a disposition of permission for a liquefied petroleum gas sales business can be asserted for that reason in the process of reporting the commencement of the business (negative)

A. Even if there is any defect in an cruel administrative act due to the validity of the fairness and the power of dispute, unless there is a reason to deem the defect to be null and void due to the significant and apparent defect, any person who can simply revoke the administrative act until the administrative act is lawfully revoked by an administrative litigation or other administrative act cannot deny its validity, and if the objection period under the law has expired, the party concerned shall not contest the validity of the administrative disposition.

B. Even if there is a defect in the disposition of permission for the business of liquefied petroleum gas sales in violation of Article 3(2) and (4) of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act and Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the above defect itself cannot be deemed as a significant and obvious defect to the extent that the disposition itself is null and void, and even if the defect is illegal, it shall not be denied its validity until the disposition is revoked, and it shall be disputed at the stage of the permission for the business of liquefied petroleum gas sales, which is the preceding disposition, and it shall not be asserted at the stage of the report for the commencement of the business, which is after the lapse of the litigation period, and it shall not be asserted at the stage of the report for the commencement of the business, which is the preceding disposition, on the ground that there is the above defect in the disposition for the permission for the business of the preceding disposition.

(a)Article 1 (Administrative Disposition) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 19 and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 18 of the Administrative Appeals Act; Articles 3(2) and 3(4) of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act; Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 62Da540 delivered on October 18, 1962 (No.588 delivered on August 18, 196, 73Nu125 delivered on August 31, 1973, 73Nu1884 delivered on March 26, 1974 (Gong1974, 7794) (Gong1989, 1262)

Hegyoung (Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu14245 delivered on September 26, 1990

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that on March 19, 198, the plaintiff adopted evidence that the defendant applied for the permission for a liquefied petroleum gas sales business pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act (hereinafter the Act only) to the defendant on April 7 of the same year with the consent of the owner of the above house within 25 meters before the commencement of the business and attached seven conditions for storage walls protection to the defendant. After the plaintiff satisfied all other conditions but did not obtain the above consent, the defendant issued a disposition to reject the report on the commencement of the business pursuant to Article 6 of the Act on June 15 of the same year on the ground that it did not attach the above consent to the plaintiff's house, and thus, the defendant did not obtain the consent of the head of the Si/Gun or the head of the Gu on the ground that the defendant's use of the above facilities and conditions of the business should not exceed the limit of the permission's disposal of liquefied petroleum gas to the extent possible.

Even if there is a defect in an cruel administrative act due to the validity of the fairness and the non-existence of force, the mere fact that there is a reason to simply revoke the administrative act until the administrative act is legally revoked by administrative litigation or other administrative act, except where the defect is significant and obvious, and there is a reason to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, shall not be denied by anyone, and if the objection period under the law has expired, the party concerned shall not dispute the validity of the administrative disposition.

In this case, even if there is a defect in the disposition of permission for a liquefied petroleum sales business in violation of the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, which the defendant obtained the consent of the owner of a house within 25 meters from the location of the place of business attached when granting permission for a liquefied petroleum gas sales business and submitted the consent to the plaintiff before the commencement of the business, the above defect itself cannot be deemed as a significant and obvious defect to the extent that the disposition itself is null and void. Thus, even if such defect is illegal as a ground for revocation, it cannot be denied its validity until the disposition is revoked, and it must be disputed at the stage of permission for a liquefied petroleum gas sales business, which is a prior disposition, and its validity shall not be asserted at the stage of report for the commencement

The court below's decision that the return disposition of this case, which is a subsequent disposition, shall not be dismissed as a matter of course, as long as the conditions attached to the house owner's written consent attached to the permission for liquefied petroleum gas sales business violate the law and there is a defect in the disposition, which is a prior disposition, is not erroneous. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above disposition for permission for liquefied petroleum gas sales business and its subsidiary officers, or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the disposition is void as a matter of course, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the fairness and influence of administrative act, which affected the

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)