영업신고 취소 및 시설폐쇄 명령 처분 취소 청구의 소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the parties' claims are examined
In short, the defendant revoked the acceptance of the report of the funeral hall business of this case and issued an order to close the funeral hall on the ground that "if the medical institution closes its business, the attached funeral hall shall no longer be operated as a facility of a medical institution, and it shall be closed."
In addition, the grounds alleged by the Defendant during the instant lawsuit following the instant disposition that “the operation of the Plaintiff’s funeral hall goes against the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the Building Act and subordinate statutes” are not allowed as an addition of the grounds for disposition that are not identical with the original grounds for disposition and basic facts.
Therefore, the Defendant’s revocation of the instant business report and the facility closure order issued against the Plaintiffs are deemed to be unlawful.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
2. In the modified part Nos. 3 to 6 of the table No. 5, the phrase “no data shall be found” shall be changed as follows:
“Specially, barring any exceptional circumstances, such as the need for important public interest to refuse the report, the report may not be rejected or rejected. However, there is no data on the foregoing E funeral hall operated by the Plaintiffs, which did not meet the standards for facilities, equipment, and safety as seen earlier at the time of reporting January 25, 2018, or there is no special circumstance, such as the need for important public interest to refuse to accept the report.”