1. The gist of the judgment below is as follows.

A. On May 15, 1990, the court below determined that the plaintiff company purchased the land of this case from the non-party Heungdong Industry Corporation (hereinafter "non-party company") for the purpose of business expansion, and the non-party company was authorized to develop the industrial base development project to use the land of this case 47,04 square meters including the land of this case as the factory site producing shipbuilding machinery in accordance with Article 8-2 of the Industrial Bases Development Promotion Act (the Industrial Sites and Development Act was enacted and enforced one year after January 13, 1990) from the Gyeongnam-do Governor, the non-party company was authorized to establish the industrial base development project to use the land of this case for the 47,04 square meters including the land of this case as the factory site producing shipbuilding machinery. The plaintiff company from the Busan City via the head of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, and it was determined that the non-party company could submit an application for permission for the change of the construction site of this case and the construction site of this case, which is the plaintiff's shipbuilding machinery and equipment, etc.

B. In filing the instant application, the Plaintiff’s assertion that, in addition to the stone plates and vans used in shipbuilding, the Defendant included items corresponding to shipbuilding equipment in accordance with the public notice given by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, such as the strings, life rafts, and bridges, etc., which were determined not to be the shipbuilding equipment. The Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table based on the Defendant’s determination of whether the items correspond to shipbuilding equipment cannot be deemed as the criteria for permission for establishing a factory, and Article 6 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, which were based on the instant return disposition, applied by the Plaintiff, do not constitute grounds for

C. The plaintiff company purchased the land of this case which is the seaside of the intention to move the place of business from the sea. The non-party company obtained permission for the industrial base development project pursuant to the Industrial Bases Development Promotion Act and Article 8-2 of the same Act and Article 31-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The plaintiff company obtained authorization for the industrial base development project for shipbuilding machinery and equipment production factory site development project from the Gyeongnam Do governor with regard to the land of this case. The plaintiff company is entitled to 95% of the total manufacturing for general building, the plaintiff company is entitled to 19% of the total manufacturing for the industrial complex of this case's 19% of the total manufacturing for the industrial complex of this case's 19% of the total manufacturing for the industrial complex of this case's 19% of the total manufacturing for the industrial complex of this case's 19% of the total manufacturing and sale business for the industrial complex of this case's 19% of the total manufacturing industrial complex of this case's 19% of the total manufacturing industrial complex of this case's 1.

2. According to the evidence No. 2-1 (Application for Permission for Factory Establishment) and evidence No. 1 (Application for Permission for Factory Establishment) that the plaintiff company submitted to the defendant is a report on factory establishment under Article 13 (1) of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, not an application for permission for factory establishment or establishment, and it is obvious that the defendant's return of it is against the provisions of Article 6 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree thereof.

3. According to Article 13(1) of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, a person who intends to build or extend a factory of not less than 200§³ shall submit a report on factory establishment to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu before commencing the construction of the factory, accompanied by a business plan and a factory placement scheme, and if the head of a Si/Gun/Gu receives a report on factory establishment, he shall deliver a written confirmation of factory establishment to the relevant reporter, and if the reported matters are deemed not in conformity with the standards under Article 13(1), the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall recommend the change of factory location or to install facilities in conformity with the prescribed standards under the Presidential Decree (paragraph (1) of the same Article), and if the person so recommended fails to comply therewith within the said period, he/she shall notify the head of a Si/Gun/Gu of the change of factory location within 7 days after receipt of the report on factory location change recommendation (paragraph 2).

4. Furthermore, according to the evidence cited by the court below, such as the above Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1, and Gap evidence No. 2-2 (factory Construction Plan), the plaintiff submitted a business plan and factory placement plan to the defendant pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, and the defendant decided that among the production items attached to the business plan submitted by the plaintiff, the shipbuilding preparations and compositeboards are not those for vessels as stipulated in the Korean Standard Industrial Classification or the Public Notice of Items for Small and Medium Enterprises Designation, and the plaintiff company rejected them for the reason that the factory cannot be installed in the industrial base development area designated as the shipbuilding machinery and equipment construction site pursuant to Article 6 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (see the judgment of the court below).

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 2-2 and Gap evidence Nos. 10 (Public Notice on the Business Plan), the main products on the business plan submitted by the plaintiff include the strings, life rafts, strings, ladderss, etc. In addition, the strings, life rafts, strings are included in the ship's parts prescribed in the public notice on the business type and items of small and medium enterprises designated affiliated companies, as well as the public notice on the business type and items of small and medium enterprises designated affiliated companies are based on the provisions of Article 5 (1) of the Promotion of Small and Medium Enterprise Affiliationization Act, and the purpose of the public notice is to determine the scope of the supply and demand industry, to strengthen international competitiveness of the industry, and to improve the industrial structure of the business type and the goods entrusted by the mother company belonging to the relevant business type. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the items to be produced in the factory that the plaintiff company intends to establish fall under the criteria for the purpose of designating the shipbuilding industrial complex of this case under Article 6 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act and the Act.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that it does not correspond to shipbuilding machinery merely with the fact that the shipbuilding standard among the products produced by the plaintiff is not included in the Korean Standard Industrial Classification, Small and Medium Enterprise Designation Department, and Item Notice. Moreover, the defendant's refusal to accept the plaintiff's report of factory establishment can be a ground for recommending the change of location under Article 9 of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act. Thus, the defendant who received the report of factory establishment shall accept it once, unless there is a defect after examining whether the report meets the formal requirements under Article 13 (1) of the same Act, and if it is judged that the reported matters are not in conformity with the location standard, it can be recommended to change the industrial location or order the change of factory location or adjustment of the plan for factory establishment as prescribed by the same Act, and it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff's acceptance of the report itself itself

5. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by finding the plaintiff's report of factory establishment as an application for permission by the rules of evidence and by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the report of factory establishment, which affected the incomplete deliberation. The grounds for appeal pointing this out

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)