중소기업창업 사업계획승인 취소처분의 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval of the business start-up business plan for the above business (hereinafter “instant business plan”) with the aim of engaging in the manufacturing business of vessel components by newly building a factory on the land of 600 ri-ri radio ri-ri 600 and 20 ri-ri ri-ri ri-ri ri-ri ri-ri ri ri-ri ri-ri ri-ri ri-ri ri-ri ri-ri ri ri-ri ri ri-ri ri ri-ri ri ri-ri ri ri-ri ri ri-ri ri
B. The Plaintiff reported the commencement of construction on December 24, 2010, but the construction was suspended for at least one year thereafter.
Accordingly, on November 8, 2012, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to implement the approval of the small and medium enterprise start-up business plan on the ground that the suspension of construction for more than one year after the commencement of the factory constitutes the grounds for revoking the approval of the business plan under the Support for Small
C. On July 4, 2013, the Corporation did not proceed with the foregoing demands, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that a hearing for cancellation of the approval of the instant project plan should be held on July 4, 2013, and held the said hearing on August 21, 2013.
In the process of the above hearing, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction is being delayed due to the conditions of the contracting company, and the Defendant sought a grace period, and on September 10, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the disposition of cancellation should be taken without the additional hearing procedure if the business operation is not conducted or the business is not completed within the grace period. The disposition of cancellation was suspended until February 28, 2014.
On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff sought a grace period on February 26, 2014 when the first grace period was imminent. On April 2, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the construction project was not normally promoted during the grace period, the Plaintiff failed to resolve the civil petition, or the Plaintiff did not intend to implement the project.