[1] Where a factory registered under the former Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act is utilized for purposes other than the manufacturing industry under the Standard Industrial Classification publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea, the reason why the registration of the factory may be revoked

[2] The case holding that the above factory cannot be used for any purpose other than the manufacturing industry under the Standard Industrial Classification publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea, in case where a massage investigation was conducted on agricultural products or non-food, etc. using the equipment of the mashline inspection equipment at a factory registered under the former Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act with the category of business of manufacturing medicine and the "her oriental medicine manufacturing business" as the category of business

[3] Where a cancellation of a beneficial administrative act is possible, and where a defect in a beneficial administrative disposition is due to a party’s fact-finding or other fraudulent act, whether the party’s trust interest should be considered (negative)

[1] When a factory registered under the former Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 6842 of Dec. 30, 2002) is utilized for purposes other than the manufacturing industry under the Standard Industrial Classification publicly announced by the Commissioner of the National Statistical Office by the Commissioner of the National Statistical Office, ① is not used for the industry related to the factory, but is not used for the purpose necessary for the operation of the factory, ② is considerably hindered in manufacturing activities of the factory, ③ is used for the purpose other than the manufacturing industry, ③ is not a part of the factory, the registration of the factory may be revoked if the part used for the manufacturing industry is one of the parts of the factory.

[2] The case holding that in the case where a massage investigation was conducted on agricultural products or non-foods at a factory registered under the former Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6842 of Dec. 30, 2002) using an anti-marcation equipment using an anti-marcation equipment for the purpose of manufacturing medicine products and “her limited medicine manufacturing business,” it cannot be deemed that the above factory was engaged in an anti-marcing service because it was merely a minimum test operation necessary to check and manage anti-marc equipment, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above factory was used for any purpose other than manufacturing business under the Standard Industrial Classification publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea.

[3] A disposition agency which has conducted an administrative act may cancel it on its own, even without a separate legal basis, even if there is a defect in the act. However, when it cancels a disposition of beneficial nature, it may cancel it only when it is necessary for the public interest to cancel it, and when comparing and comparing disadvantages suffered by the parties due to such cancellation, such as the protection of trust and trust, and the infringement of stability in legal life, etc., and only when the necessity of public interest is strong enough to justify the disadvantages suffered by the parties concerned. Furthermore, if the defect in the disposition of beneficial nature is due to the party's act of application by concealment or other fraudulent methods, the party could have known that the benefit from the disposition was illegally acquired. Thus, it cannot invoke the trust interest in the disposition, and even if it did not consider it, it does not abuse its discretionary power.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 2 subparagraph 1) and Article 17 (1) 3 (see current Article 17 (1) 3 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (Amended by Act No. 6842, Dec. 30, 2002); Article 2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18039, Jun. 30, 2003); Article 2 (2) of the former Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (see current Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act; Article 21 (2) 2 (see current Article 21 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act); Article 21 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (see current Article 20 (1) and (2) 4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act)

[3] Supreme Court Decision 85Nu664 delivered on February 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 550) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7760 Delivered on August 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2442) Supreme Court Decision 2001Du5286 Delivered on February 5, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 682) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7606 Delivered on July 22, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1530) Supreme Court Decision 203Du12738 Delivered on September 30, 2005

[Judgment of the court below]

Dasan Market (Law Firm Dasan, Attorneys Kim Li-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu18970 delivered on March 28, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 17 (1) 3 of the Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 21 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may cancel the registration of a factory in the event that the factory registered under the provisions of Article 16 (1) through (3) of the Act is utilized for any purpose other than the factory: Provided, That this shall not apply to the case where the factory is used for the use of the industry related to the factory or for the operation of the factory, and a part of the factory is used for another purpose. Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act, Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, Article 2 (1) of the Industrial Placement and Factory Establishment Act provides that "factory" means manufacturing facilities, such as structures, and machinery and equipment forming goods manufacturing process, and facilities incidental thereto, which are installed for the manufacturing industry publicly notified by the Commissioner of the National Statistical Office pursuant to the provisions of Article 17 of the Statistics Act.

According to the facts and records duly established by the court below, the plaintiff was established for the purpose of promoting cooperative movement projects under the Act on the Promotion of Small and Medium Enterprises and the Encouragement of Purchase of Their Products. On February 18, 199, the plaintiff was supported by the Small and Medium Business Corporation's total amount of 30 million won from the same Corporation for the purpose of inspection of 00 million won radioactive materials for manufacturing industry and 1944. The plaintiff filed an application for approval of the establishment of the factory of this case with the Korea Food and Drug Corporation's ○○ Industrial Complex, which is located within the Korea Food and Drug Corporation, 196. The plaintiff was approved for the alteration of the manufacturer's industrial equipment and 24. The plaintiff was approved for the alteration of the manufacturer's industrial equipment and 6. The plaintiff was approved for the alteration of the manufacturer's industrial equipment and 194. The plaintiff was approved for the alteration of the manufacturer's industrial equipment and 19.

According to the above facts, where the Plaintiff, as its main industrial activity, engaged in the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical medicine products or the “herb drug manufacturing business,” which is the type of business registered with the factory of this case, and uses the maump equipment for the maump process, the factory of this case, including the above maump equipment, should be used for the manufacturing purpose. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff installed the maump equipment in the factory of this case to have used the factory of this case for the purpose other than the factory. Further, even if the Plaintiff conducted a maump survey on agricultural products or non-food using the maum survey equipment of this case for about three months before and after the disposition of this case, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff carried out the eump service because it was merely the minimum test operation necessary for the inspection and management of the eump equipment, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have used the eump equipment for the purpose other than the factory of this case for the purpose other than the factory of this case.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful on the ground that the plaintiff used the factory of this case for a use other than the factory, and the court below's explanation of its reasoning is somewhat insufficient, but its conclusion that the above disposition ground is unlawful is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the cancellation of factory registration.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

As recognized in the record, unless the defendant attaches the contents of the letter of notarial deed of this case on approval of factory construction or registration of factory, it cannot be deemed that the contents of the letter of notarial deed of this case constitute a condition as an assistant factory registration assistant.

However, one of the grounds for the disposition of this case that "the violation of the contents of the letter of notarial dismissal constitutes a violation of the conditions attached to the registration of this case" is based on the premise that the contents of the letter of notarial dismissal of this case fall under the conditions attached to the registration of the factory of this case. Thus, the above grounds for disposition are unlawful. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the conditions or the rejection as alleged in the

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The court below held that, on April 27, 1999, when applying for approval of factory construction to the defendant, the act of applying for approval of the type of business as "the manufacturing business of pharmaceutical products" constitutes a category of service under the Industrial Classification of the Statistics Korea, on the ground that "the plaintiff cannot be acknowledged as an independent ground for revocation of factory registration, because it infringes the right of people already vested in the case of an infringing administrative act such as cancellation or suspension of a beneficial administrative disposition, it shall be conducted on the grounds prescribed by law." One of the grounds of the disposition in this case, "the plaintiff obtained approval of the cooperation project implementation plan on February 18, 199 with the type of business from the headquarters of the Small and Medium Business Corporation as a radiation research business (m)" as one of the grounds of the disposition in this case, and therefore, it is unlawful without examining the above grounds for disposition on the ground that the plaintiff committed fraudulent or other unlawful act to the defendant.

However, if there is a defect in an administrative act, a disposition agency which has conducted an administrative act may cancel it by itself, even without any separate legal basis. However, when cancelling a disposition of a beneficial administrative disposition, it may cancel it only when it is necessary for the public interest to cancel it, and when comparing and comparing disadvantages suffered by the parties due to the cancellation, such as the necessity of the public interest and the protection of trust and the infringement of the stability of legal life, etc., and only when it is strong enough to justify the disadvantages suffered by the parties concerned. Furthermore, if the defect of the beneficial administrative disposition is due to the party's fact or the act of application by deceit or other fraudulent means, it is anticipated that the party concerned has a possibility to cancel it that the benefit from the disposition was illegally acquired. Thus, it shall not be allowed to invoke the trust interest in the disposition, and even if the administrative agency did not consider it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu664, Feb. 25, 198; 90Nu760, Aug. 23, 1991).

However, according to the records, the plaintiff's application for registration of the factory of this case is deemed to meet all the requirements for registration of a factory under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act and the Enforcement Decree. Thus, even if the plaintiff had an intention to utilize the factory of this case for not only the purpose of the factory, but also for the purpose other than the factory, such reason alone cannot be deemed to have a ground for revocation as an administrative act with defect in registration of the factory of this case. However, if the plaintiff actually uses the factory for the purpose other than the factory due to the realization of the above internal intent, it can only be a ground for cancellation of registration of the factory under the Act and the Enforcement Decree. Thus, the above disposition ground

Although the court below's explanation of its reasoning is partially inappropriate, the court below's determination that the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground of the above disposition was just, and the above erroneous error of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it cannot accept this part of

4. Conclusion

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 Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)