과태료면제거부처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
The reasoning for this case is as follows, the court which accepted the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of adding a decision on the defense prior to the merits, which the defendant claims additionally in the court of first instance, and thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Revision] Part of the judgment of the first instance court is written in accordance with the following article 14 and 20 of the judgment of the first instance.
On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Minister of Strategy and Finance seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant non-exempt disposition and revocation of the instant non-exempt disposition, as a preliminary measure, against the Defendant, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the imposition of the instant fine for negligence.
(Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap62211). On August 16, 2018, the above court dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim against the Minister of Strategy and Finance and accepted the conjunctive claim, and rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit against the defendant.
(hereinafter “The instant judgment”). As the Plaintiff appealed (Seoul High Court 2018Nu62647), the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the lawsuit against the Minister of Strategy and Finance on December 18, 2018, when the Minister of Strategy and Finance continued the appellate trial on November 6, 2018.
On January 25, 2019, the above appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendant, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on February 9, 2019.
Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance court is sentenced and confirmed, and accordingly, the Minister of Strategy and Finance has sentenced "the Minister of Strategy and Finance," and the Minister of Strategy and Finance has decided "in accordance with the purport of the judgment."
The judgment of the first instance court Nos. 11 and 12 of the 8th judgment "if it has become final and conclusive, the defendant still remains final and conclusive according to the binding force of the judgment, and as seen earlier, the Minister of Strategy and Finance has decided on the plaintiff according to the purport of the judgment.