[1] The case where an administrative disposition can be revoked

[2] Whether a subsequent disposition, which was added to the prior disposition, is legitimate, on the ground of a non-performance of duties by a father (negative)

[3] The case holding that a disposition to revoke a business license is an illegal disposition that deviates from the scope of discretion where the permission was revoked on the ground that a liquefied petroleum gas dealer violated an order to perform his/her duty under the pretext of "the consent of neighboring residents"

[1] When an administrative agency revokes a beneficial administrative disposition, it may revoke it only when the necessity of the public interest needs to be revoked even if there are grounds such as revocation, and the infringement of the right to obtain benefits and the protection of trust and the stability of legal life to be suffered by the parties due to such revocation, etc., are compared and compared, and only when the necessity of the public interest is strong enough to justify the disadvantages suffered

[2] Even if a father's disposition of permission for a liquefied petroleum gas sales business, which is a preceding disposition, is a legitimate father, the pertinent disposition of permission for a business, which is a subsequent disposition, is not a legitimate father's failure to perform his duties.

[3] The case holding that the disposition to cancel the business permission by the head of the competent Gu is an illegal disposition that deviates from the scope of discretionary power because the present place of business of a liquefied petroleum gas dealer cannot be deemed as impeding public safety and interests, the failure of the business operator's duty under the pretext of "the consent of neighboring residents" is merely a ground for reservation of acceptance of a report on commencement of the business, the failure to meet the criteria for permission, and the circumstances that the business operator could not operate the business until the present time after the business permission was obtained, and the process and result of each lawsuit related thereto, etc. are considered to be the case that the disposition to cancel the business permission by the head of the competent Gu is an illegal disposition that deviates from the scope of discretionary power, on the grounds that the business operator's current place of business cannot

[1] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 3 (4) and 6 of the former Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act (amended by Act No. 4967 of Aug. 4, 1995), Article 3 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14806 of Nov. 22, 1995), Article 7 [Attachment 5] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14806 of Mar. 11, 1996) / [3] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and 27 of the Administrative Litigation

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2803 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1913), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu5635 delivered on June 29, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2170), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu22678 delivered on October 11, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2998)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Gwangju, Attorneys Kim Tae-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu10725 delivered on September 6, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental grounds submitted after the expiration of the submission period).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, where a person who has obtained permission for a liquefied petroleum gas sales business (hereinafter referred to as "business") reports the commencement of business, the permission-granting agency may actually review the business for safety management and, if necessary, refuse to repair the business. The court below rejected the report on the commencement of business for the following reasons: "If there is a civil petition against the commencement of business from 1/2 or more house owners of a house located within 50 meters from the place of business, the defendant may withhold the commencement of business in the case of a civil petition against the commencement of business from 1/2 or more house owners of a house located within 50 meters from the place of business." The court below rejected the report on the commencement of business for not more than 50 meters of the place of business as well as the civil petition against the commencement of business from the owner of a house within 50 meters from the place of business, etc., on the ground that the area of the Guro-gu office of business management falls short of the facility standards stipulated in the guidelines for the permission of gas business, etc. and ordered the plaintiff to secure the area of management office.

When the administrative agency revokes a beneficial administrative disposition, it is possible to cancel the disposition of this case, which is a subsequent disposition, on the ground of the non-performance of duties under the authority of the administrative agency, after comparing and comparing the necessity of the public interest to cancel the disposition of this case, the right to obtain benefits, protection of trust and stability of legal life, etc. to be borne by the parties due to such cancellation, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu22678 delivered on October 11, 1994). Meanwhile, even if a father added to the disposition of this case which is a prior disposition of this case, is a legitimate father, the disposition of cancellation of the business of this case, which is a subsequent disposition, is not necessarily legitimate.

According to the records, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on June 23, 1989 on the ground that the defendant's business permission was revoked on the ground that he was located within 500 meters of the existing business place on May 10, 1990, and the defendant's appeal against the cancellation was dismissed on April 14, 1992 by Seoul High Court, but the above judgment became final and conclusive, but it became impossible to conduct the business because the defendant's business was designated as a residential environment improvement district. The plaintiff filed an application for change of the location of the business on April 13, 1993 to the residents of the above Seoul Guro-gu ( Address 2 omitted), but the defendant filed a lawsuit on May 16, 199 without reporting the commencement of business at the original business place, and the defendant did not have the authority to revise the former Enforcement Decree of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of the Korea Gas Corporation (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1974, Dec. 22, 199; Presidential Decree No. 1965, Mar. 14, 1994).

If the facts are as above, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's present place of business is detrimental to public safety and interest solely on the grounds that the neighboring residents oppose or the area of the office is narrow, and the failure to perform the above additional duties, which is the consent of neighboring residents, is merely a ground for reservation of acceptance of the report on commencement of the original business, and is not excessive, and the plaintiff cannot conduct the business until now after the permission was obtained on June 23, 1989, and the process and result of each lawsuit related thereto, the defendant's disposition of cancellation of the business of this case is an illegal disposition that deviates from the scope of discretionary power because it loses equity between the needs of public interest and the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff. However, the court below's judgment lawful is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of discretionary power. This point out this point is justified.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)