면적변경신고거부처분취소소송
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment on the plaintiff's newly raised assertion to this court when it comes to this case, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42
2. Determination on addition
A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s filing of the first business report with respect to the instant business place, the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the actual business place of the said business place amounts to approximately two hundred and twenty-five square meters, allowed the Plaintiff to engage in the restaurant business at the instant business place by accepting the said business report.
Nevertheless, the rejection disposition of this case, which the defendant submitted by the defendant on the basis of the actual place of business according to the defendant's corrective order, was unlawful since it violated the principle of trust protection.
B. Determination 1) In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to an act of an administrative agency, ① an administrative agency must issue the public opinion list that is the subject of trust to an individual; ② an administrative agency’s trust in the statement of opinion to an individual should not be attributable to the individual; ③ the individual should have conducted any act in trust with the individual’s statement of opinion; ④ an administrative agency should have conducted any act in violation of the above statement of opinion; ④ an administrative agency’s disposition in violation of the above statement of opinion to cause infringement on the individual’s trust in the name of opinion; and (4) any administrative disposition is not likely to seriously undermine the public interest or a third party’s legitimate interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du4061, May 8, 1998; 201Du5940, Dec. 26, 2013).