장례식장 시설 전부의 사용금지 처분 취소
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 this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff as to the allegations raised by the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. 1) Plaintiff’s assertion of violation of the principle of retroactive legislative prohibition (1) The funeral hall of this case was legitimately operated around June 21, 2007 as incidental facilities to G oriental medical hospitals, which are medical institutions, and the Act on Funeral Services, etc. (hereinafter “the Funeral Act”) amended on January 28, 2015.
(2) In addition, in the case of the instant funeral hall, which is an ancillary facility of a medical institution, even if a medical institution discontinues its business, it is possible to continue running a funeral hall business in the instant building that is located in the medical institution on the building ledger, and it cannot be deemed a violation of the purpose of use under the Building Act. As a result of the amendment to the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act on December 13, 2010, the funeral hall is modified to be included in the category of industrial facility group in the higher military facility group than the medical institution (in the case of changing the purpose of use to the upper-ranking group, it is necessary to obtain permission from the Special Self-Governing Province Governor or the head of Si/Gun/Gu, who has jurisdiction over the Special Self-Governing Province.
In the case of the funeral hall of this case, the above revised law is also in violation of the principle of prohibition of retroactive legislation.
Nevertheless, the defendant registered the building of this case as a non-compliant building related to the use of the building and did not accept the report of the funeral hall business of this case for this reason.