2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's disposition of revoking factory registration against the plaintiff on August 28, 2000 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap's evidence 1 through 12, Gap's evidence 14, 15, Gap's evidence 20 through 23, Gap's evidence 20 through 35, Gap's evidence 1 through 35, Gap's evidence 45 through 51, Gap's evidence 72-1, Eul's evidence 1 through 6, Eul's evidence 10, Eul's evidence 10, and Eul's evidence 35-1 through 3, and there is no other counter-proof unless the testimony of the witness of the first instance court is trusted.

A. On January 6, 1999, the Plaintiff was established by five companies, such as the non-party corporation, the Korea Institute of Telecommunications, Samjin medicine, member medication, Gwangju Drugs, and Hannuri Mangalgal, for the purpose of promoting the cooperation project. On February 18, 1999, the Plaintiff applied for the cooperation project with the headquarters of the Seoul Small and Medium Business Corporation, which was notified of the approval of the cooperation project implementation plan with the type of industry as medicine and health auxiliary food, and received as the name of the Small and Medium Business Promotion Fund.

B. On the other hand, on April 27 of the same year, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the approval of the establishment of a factory with the building area of 1,744 square meters or more as a type of business on the ground of the business 900-3 of Gyeonggi-do, which is a local industrial complex, which is a local industrial complex created as a pharmaceutical complex, on the ground of the Gyeonggi-do 900-3, which is a sports complex. The Defendant approved the above factory establishment on May 4, 199 (the Defendant, at this time, filed a report on the scattering dust generation business under the Clean Air Conservation Act and filed a report on the installation of a seed discharge facility under the Clean Air Conservation Act and obtained the construction permission on the condition

C. However, around September of the same year, the Defendant received a civil petition from the labor union of the Korea Pharmaceutical Corporation with the instant factory to the effect that the Plaintiff established a radiation survey crack service center in the instant factory, but the Defendant did not approve it. On December 7 of the same year, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of the use of the building of the instant factory on the ground that the construction design, etc. of the instant factory was confirmed by the Defendant, which verified that there was a radiation survey crack equipment, such as that the wall thickness of some of the instant factory is more than 2 meters, and that there was a water storage equipment containing radiation.

D. Accordingly, on December 15, 1999, the Defendant submitted a notarized letter to the Defendant that “after the application for the completion of the building and the approval for the registration of the factory, the building will be used in accordance with the purpose of the manufacturing industry of pharmaceutical products, and will not be used only for the satisfy equipment use after the application for the registration of the factory.” On December 28, 1999, the Plaintiff again submitted a notarized letter to the Defendant, at the Defendant’s request on December 28, 1999, that “The satisfy of the manufacturing process will only be used only for high voltage steam satfy, satfy, and satfying with the specifications of the emission facilities submitted at the time of the first approval for the establishment of the factory, and the Plaintiff will not install and operate a satisfy equipment other than the satfy equipment, such as the satfying system.”

E. On December 29, 199, the defendant applied for the approval of the use of the factory building of this case to the plaintiff. On January 12, 2000, the plaintiff received an application from the plaintiff for approval to establish a new factory (revision) which added the manufacturing business of biochemical products to the business type. On February 19, 200, the defendant approved the above factory establishment (revision) around the 19th of the same month. On February 26, 2000, after receiving a completion report of factory establishment from the plaintiff, the defendant registered the factory of this case and issued the certificate of factory registration to the plaintiff.

F. On the 13th of the same month, the Plaintiff obtained permission for the manufacturing business of medicines from the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration, and obtained permission for the use of radiation from the Minister of Science and Technology on April 14, 2000. Accordingly, on July 6, 2000, the Plaintiff installed the instant factory with the mastrotococul and germs facilities (facilities for sterilizing and treating soil microorganisms or shocks existing in biochemical drugs by administering the mastrotos). At the same time, the Plaintiff conducted a demonstration against the Plaintiff on the grounds that neighboring residents, who became aware of such fact, are threatening to ensure the safety of radiation over several times.

G. Accordingly, on June 20, 200, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the disposition of revoking factory registration, issued an order to remove and remove scambling equipment (co-60) on August 4, 200. On August 19, 200, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Defendant’s order to remove and remove scambling equipment (co-60). On August 28, 200, the instant disposition that revoked the registration of the instant factory against the Plaintiff was issued on August 28, 200, the Plaintiff’s act of using the scambling equipment (i.e., e., radiation research equipment) to use the relevant factory for the purpose other than a factory; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s act of using the scambling equipment (i.e., e., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., 17 manufacturing equipment).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

As to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above grounds of disposition and the relevant statutes, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case does not exist as follows, and that the disposition of this case should be revoked on the grounds that there is an abuse of discretionary power,

First, the plaintiff was registered as the factory of this case for the purpose of the manufacturing industry of pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical products, and the above facilities for the mascopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics or scopic scopic scopic scopic scopicscopic scopic scopicscopic scopic scopic scopics

Second, it cannot be deemed that the statement of this case prepared by the plaintiff cannot be deemed as "the conditions attached to factory registration" that fall under the grounds for revoking factory registration under Article 17 of the Act and Article 21 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and the statement of this case cannot be deemed as an ex post facto subsidiary to the approval of factory construction, which is the process of factory registration, as alleged by the defendant, and therefore the violation of the statement of this case does not fall under the conditions for revoking factory registration under the Act and the Enforcement Decree. Thus, the defendant's disposition

Third, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's act constitutes grounds for revocation by deceit and fraudulent act on the ground that he belongs to the defendant, but there is no fact that the plaintiff belongs to the defendant, and the fraudulent act does not constitute grounds for revocation of factory registration as prescribed by the Act and the Enforcement Decree, and thus, the defendant's disposition

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Procedures for the establishment and registration of factories;

(2) The Act provides that approval for establishment of a factory shall be granted (Article 13-5, 14-4, 17 of the Act, and Articles 19-4 and 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act) (4) approval for installation of manufacturing facilities (Article 14-3 of the Act and approval for establishment without specifying the type of business in advance). (6) The Act provides that approval for establishment of a factory shall be granted from the date of establishment to the date of registration of a factory (Article 16 of the Act) to the date of revocation of approval for establishment of a factory, approval for installation of manufacturing facilities, and registration of a factory (Article 13-5, 14-4, 17 of the Act, and Articles 19-4, and 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act).

D. Determination as to the ground for disposition of this case

(1) Facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 29, 30-30-1, 2, 31, 32, 35-1 through 3, 36, 37, 38-1 through 16, 8, 9, 26, 27 evidence No. 39, and 39-1 through 16, 8, 9, 26, 27 evidence No. 39, and 39, and the whole purport of the pleading at the video.

㈎ 이 사건 공장의 지하층에는 완제품보관, 투자재보관, 원료대기, 원료보관, 측량실, 선별실, 복도, 건조실, 분쇄실, 혼합실, 포장실 등 공정별로 구분한 공정별 작업장이 구분되어 있어 각 작업장 별로 해당되는 기계가 있고, 지상 1층에는 사무실용 방실과 멸균조정실이 구분되어 있으며, 멸균조정실의 일부분인 감마선 조사실은 두께 2.5m의 콘크리트 벽으로 외부와 차폐되어 있는 어두운 방실로서, 그 아래쪽으로 물을 가득 담고 있는 콘크리트 수조 속에 감마선 조사기가 물속에 잠겨 있는데, 작동시에는 감마선 조사기가 수조에서 나와 코발트 60 감마선을 조사하여 멸균하는 공정을 수행하고 있다.

㈏ 식품의약품안전청장은 의약품의 방사선 조사에 의한 멸균작업은 의약품 제조공정의 범위에 해당한다고 하였고, 산업자원부장관은 제조업으로 분류되는 의약품 제조 시설의 일부를 다수의 사업자가 공동으로 설치한 경우에도 의약품 제조시설은 공장에 해당한다고 하였으며, 통계청장은 방사선처리가 주된 산업활동인 경우 방사선 처리의 대상에 따라 처리대상이 채소, 과실, 곡물 등의 농산물인 경우 농업에, 가공식품인 경우는 제조업에, 비식료품인 경우는 사업지원 서비스업에 각 해당한다고 분류하였다.

㈐ 이 사건 공장이 입주한 향남제약공단은 경기도 고시 제144호에 의하여 “의약품 제조 및 그 관련업체”를 그 입주의 대상으로 하고 있는데, 그 입주현황에 의하면 의약품 제조업체는 30개, 원료의약품 제조업체는 2개, 진단시약제조업체는 1개, 식품업체 14개, 화장품 업체 4개, 동물약품 업체 2개이다.

(2) Determination

Article 16 of the Act provides that "the head of a Si/Gun/Gu or a management agency shall register the completion report of the establishment, etc. of a factory under Article 15 with the factory registration ledger under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, and the grounds for the revocation of the registration of a factory are limited to the grounds stipulated in Article 17 of the Act and Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and the procedures for the revocation of the approval for the establishment of a factory (Article 13-5 of the Act) or the procedures for the revocation of the approval for the establishment of manufacturing facilities (Article 14-4 of the Act) are strictly distinguishable from the procedures for the revocation of the approval for the establishment of a factory (Article 17 of the Act) or the procedures for the revocation of the

Furthermore, if the plaintiff's "use of the factory for any purpose other than a factory" under Article 17 (1) 3 of the Act and Article 21 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act is equipped with a series of equipment necessary for the pharmaceutical manufacturing business and the biochemical pharmaceutical manufacturing business as seen earlier and part of the manufacturing process as part of the manufacturing process, the reason that the plaintiff's use of the factory in question constitutes "use of the factory for any purpose other than a factory" under Article 21 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree. Further, there is no material to acknowledge that the plaintiff has utilized the factory in question only for the purpose of service business, the reason for disposition in this case is not a legitimate reason for disposition.

E. Judgment on the ground for disposition 2

(1) Facts

On April 27, 1999, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval to establish the factory of this case with the Defendant. The Defendant, on May 4, 1999, approved the establishment of the factory of this case on the condition that the report on the fugitive dust generation business and the installation of fest discharge facilities under the Clean Air Conservation Act should be reported and that the construction permit should be granted, and thereafter, on December 28, 1999, the Plaintiff filed a registration with the Defendant on December 29, 199 that “The process of the fest production process in accordance with the specifications of discharge facilities submitted at the time of the initial factory establishment establishment approval shall be high voltage feat, feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat feat fat feat feat fat feat feat fat fat fat fat.).

(2) Determination

㈎ 일반적으로 수익적 행정처분을 취소하거나 중지시키는 경우와 같은 침해적 행정행위를 하는 경우에는 이미 부여된 국민의 기득권을 침해하는 것이 되므로 법률에 의하여 규정된 사유에 따라 행하여져야 할 것이다.

㈏ 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 공장등록취소가 기존의 수익적 행정행위를 취소 또는 중지시키는 침해적 행정행위라는 점에 비추어 볼 때, 법 제17조 제1항 제3호 의 위임을 받은 시행령 제21조 제2항 제3호 에서 규정하고 있는 “공장등록시 붙인 조건”을 이행하지 아니한 경우라 함은 법문에 충실하게 “공장등록 당시 그 등록의 부관으로서 붙인 등록조건”을 이행하지 아니한 경우로 한정하여 보아야 함이 상당하다고 할 것이다.

However, the facts that the contents of the letter of notarial deed of this case were not registered because they were attached to the registration condition at the time of the above disposition of factory registration on March 10, 200, and the fact that the contents of the letter of notarial deed of this case were not registered are as seen above. However, the facts are as follows: (i) when the party submits a letter of notarial deed of this case in consultation with the administrative agency, the administrative agency attaches the letter of notarial deed of this case that the above contents should be complied with under the conditions of administrative act based on the letter of notarial deed of this case; and (ii) even if the letter of notarial deed of this case was attached to the administrative agency, it cannot be viewed as the additional letter of notarial deed of this case as the condition attached to the registration of factory of this case; (iii) if it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff is not able to dispute the invalidity of the certificate of notarial deed of this case through administrative litigation, etc., it is difficult to see that the letter of notarial deed of this case is a notarial deed of this case.

㈐ 또 피고는, 공장설립승인과 공장건축물사용승인, 공장등록은 연속적인 행정행위이어서, 위 시행령 제21조 제2항 제3호 의 “공장등록시 붙인 조건”에는 공장건축물 사용승인시에 붙인 조건도 포함하므로, 이 사건 공증각서는 “공장등록시 붙인 조건”에 해당한다고 주장하나, 피고는 공장건축물 사용승인 당시에도 이 사건 공증각서의 이행여부를 그 사용승인의 조건으로 하지는 아니한 점은 앞서 본 바와 같으므로, 피고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

㈑ 다시 피고는, 사정변경으로 인하여 당초에 부관을 부가한 목적을 달성할 수 없게 된 경우에는 사후 부관을 붙일 수 있는 바, 피고는 원고가 이 사건 공장에 감마선 조사 멸균시설을 설치하는 등 중대한 사정변경에 따라 공장설립 승인 후 원고로부터 이 사건 공증각서를 제출받았으므로 이는 사후부관으로서 적법하다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 부관이라 함은 ‘주된 행정행위의 의사표시에 부가되는 행정청의 종된 의사표시’라고 할 것인데, 피고가 이 사건 공장의 설립승인 이후 이 사건 공증각서의 이행여부를 위 공장설립승인의 부관으로 한다는 의사표시를 하였음을 인정할 아무런 자료가 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

㈒ 마지막으로 피고는, 피고가 공장설립승인시 공장설립승인내용을 변경하거나 승인된 내용과 다른 사업을 영위하여서는 안된다고 공장설립승인서에 명시적으로 고지하였는바, 원고가 피고에게 제출한 공증각서는 공장설립승인시의 공장설립승인내용을 계속적으로 이행하겠다는 강학상의 이른바 ‘확약’(확약)에 해당하여 위 공증각서는 유효하다고 주장하나, ‘확약’이라는 것은 국민의 신뢰보호를 위하여 행정청의 의사표시에 구속력을 인정하려는 것이지, 행정청의 신뢰보호를 위하여 국민의 의사표시에 구속력을 인정하려는 것이 아니므로, 피고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

㈓ 따라서, 원고가 법 제17조 제1항 및 시행령 제21조 제2항 제3호 소정의 '공장등록시에 붙인 조건을 위반한 경우‘에 해당함을 내세운 피고의 이 사건 ② 처분사유도 위법하다.

F. Judgment on the grounds for disposition No. 3

In the case of cancelling or suspending the approval for the installation of manufacturing facilities under Article 14-4 of the Act, if an infringing administrative act such as cancellation or suspension of the approval for the establishment of manufacturing facilities, it shall be done in accordance with the grounds prescribed by the Act, and therefore, it shall not be recognized as an independent reason for revocation of the registration of a factory that is not prescribed by the Act. Thus, the grounds for the disposition in this case cannot be recognized as an independent reason for revocation of the registration for the establishment of a factory. Thus, the defendant's ground for disposition in this case, on the ground that the plaintiff committed a fraudulent or unlawful act against the administrative agency, should not be examined further (Article 14-4 of the Act provides for the ground for revocation of the approval for the establishment of manufacturing facilities, but Article 17 of the Act does not provide for the ground for revocation of the registration of

G. Sub-committee

Thus, since the defendant's grounds for disposition (1) through (3) of this case are all illegal, the defendant's revocation disposition of this case on the ground of the above grounds is illegal as it lacks the requirements for revocation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-soo(Presiding Judge)