2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where the following parts are cited or added. Thus, this Court’s explanation is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. Once the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, "No. 7" shall be deleted.

B. The following parts are added between the fourth and fourth of the judgment of the first instance.

"A plaintiff, according to the Administrative Procedures Act, although he/she has submitted without delay the records of the hearing and other related documents to the administrative agency, in this case, despite the fact that the date when the statement of the hearing was prepared was too late on May 27, 2014, the date when the statement of the hearing was prepared on June 16, 2014." However, the hearing system is intended to consider the possibility of correction of the above legal grounds by granting parties an opportunity to submit materials favorable to the grounds of administrative disposition, and to achieve careful and proper disposition. Thus, the above hearing procedure cannot be deemed unlawful merely on the ground that the date when the statement of the hearing was prepared was 20 days after the date when the hearing was completed. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected."

C. The following parts are added between the 8th and 7th of the judgment of the first instance.

In light of the purport that "the cancellation is suspended by filing an application for permission to engage in activities with the budget group" in the hearing protocol prepared by the defendant, the defendant expressed his/her opinion that the disposition in this case would be taken by July 31, 2014. Therefore, the disposition in this case before July 31, 2014 should be deemed to be in violation of the principle of self-defense or the principle of protection of trust (Article 4 of the preparatory document on March 15, 2016). However, "the statement of the party, etc." in the hearing protocol (Article 5) is "the statement of the party, etc." on May 26, 14, 200, the "the request for postponement of cancellation is made by filing an application for permission to engage in activities with the budget group," and "the person in charge is also dismissed by the Supreme Court on September 12, 2013 that the plaintiff did not obtain the permission to engage in activities against the head of the Gun for cancellation of the permission."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judge Park Jong-hoon