beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.09.27 2012구합4786

영업허가취소처분취소

Text

1. On July 11, 2012, the Defendant’s motion to select an agro-industrial complex located in the instant lawsuit against Taesung Jae-in Co., Ltd.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 1, 1986, the Defendant designated the area of 66,549 square meters in Ansan-si as B-Industrial Complex (hereinafter “instant agro-industrial complex”). At the instant agro-industrial complex, 12 enterprises, such as machinery and electricity, electronic commerce, etc. are currently located in the instant agro-industrial complex, and the Plaintiff is the owner of D land immediately adjacent to the instant agro-industrial complex and is residing on the ground.

B. On July 5, 2012 and July 31, 2012, Hyundai Accom requested the Defendant, who is the authorized administrator (management agency) under Articles 30(1) and 38(1) of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (hereinafter “Industrial Cluster Act”), to conclude each contract for the occupancy of the instant agro-industrial complex, and the Defendant entered into an occupancy contract on July 11, 2012 after giving a notice of the selection of an occupant enterprise to Taesung-Jak, and entered into an occupancy contract on the 12th of the same month after giving a notice of the selection of an occupant enterprise to Hyundai Accom on August 3, 2012.

7. A contract for occupancy was concluded (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

C. On September 5, 2012, the Plaintiff came to know of the fact that the Defendant rendered each of the instant dispositions, and currently, Daesung and Hyundai Accom are operating a factory manufacturing Accom using waste Accom, etc. in the agro-industrial complex (hereinafter “each of the instant factories”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the part of the motion for nullification and revocation of the selection of an agro-industrial complex is legitimate, among the lawsuits in this case, the validity of the selection of an agro-industrial complex and the part of the motion for revocation.

Article 38 (1) of the Industrial Cluster Act provides that a person who conducts or intends to conduct manufacturing business in an industrial complex shall conclude a contract for occupancy with a management agency, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, and Article 13 (2) of the same Act.