[하천점용허가권원상복구][미간행]
Plaintiff
Chuncheon Market (Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Intervenor joining the Defendant
October 31, 2012
Chuncheon District Court Decision 201Guhap2413 Decided July 6, 2012
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is borne by the Defendant, while the part arising from the participation by the Defendant is borne by the Intervenor.
1. Purport of claim
The defendant confirmed that the disposition on the succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit made against the non-party 1 (the non-party in the judgment of the Supreme Court) on November 12, 2007, the disposition on the succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit made to the non-party 2 on December 18, 2007, the disposition on the succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit made to the non-party 3 on April 29, 2008, the permission on the change of the purpose of occupation and use permit made to the non-party 3 on May 29, 2008, the permission on the occupation and use permit made to the non-party 4 on April 30, 200, the succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit made to the non-party 1 (the non-party in the judgment of the Supreme Court), each disposition on the extension permission made to the non-party 1 on March 12, 2010.
2. Purport of appeal
The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.
The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is that "for the purpose of the administrative disposition to become null and void as a matter of course, there is an illegal cause" in the first head of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance. It is insufficient to say that the defect is a serious violation of the important part of the law, and objectively obvious. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be examined from a teleological perspective and reasonable consideration should also be made on the specificity of the specific case itself (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du10968, Jun. 24, 2005; 2005Du11937, Sept. 21, 2007; 2005Du1937, Sept. 21, 2007, etc.). Thus, this is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)