The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Case summary and key issue

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

1) The Plaintiff is an incorporated foundation that obtained permission for establishment on January 13, 2016 for the business of discovering and supporting sports human resources as its objective business. 2) The Defendant, in the process of the Plaintiff’s establishment, contributed to the capital voluntarily by large companies in the performance of official duties of public officials, there is an inherent defect to revoke the permission for establishment of the Plaintiff. Since there is an seeking private interest of C even in the process of the Plaintiff’s establishment and operation, the Plaintiff, on March 20, 2017, revoked the permission for establishment of the instant case on the ground that the existence of the Plaintiff per se harms the public interest.

B. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant’s ground for disposition was justifiable in the disposition of revocation of permission for establishment of the instant case, i.e., whether ex officio revocation of permission for establishment of the Plaintiff is allowed on the ground of the inherent defect in permission for establishment, and whether revocation of permission for establishment of the Plaintiff is allowed on the ground of the occurrence of the grounds under Article 38 of the Civil Act in the course

2. Whether ex officio revocation of permission for incorporation is permitted on the grounds of the inherent defect in permission for incorporation;

(a) Where there is a defect in an administrative act, the agency which has performed one administrative act may cancel it on its own, even if there is no separate legal basis;

However, when cancelling a beneficial administrative disposition, it may be revoked only when the public interest needs are compared and compared to the needs of the public interest to be revoked and the disadvantages suffered by the parties due to the cancellation, such as the protection of trust and the infringement of the stability of legal life, and only when it is strong to justify the disadvantages suffered by the parties.