동물장묘업등록불가처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the disposition is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant quoted ruling rejected the Plaintiff’s application for registration, and revoked the Defendant’s disposition on March 2, 2016, and thus, the instant disposition that re-acceptances the Plaintiff’s application for registration of the instant business following the instant quoted ruling violates the binding force of the instant quoted ruling. 2) Since the space where the instant cremation was installed has a wall with approximately 3.5 meters high in height so that the general public can not access, the space where the instant cremation was installed, it shall be deemed that it is isolated from other facilities. Even if it is not recognized that it is isolated, the instant disposition was unlawful since the Defendant issued the instant disposition without going through the procedure to demand the Plaintiff to supplement the relevant facilities pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act.
(b) Attached Form of relevant statutes;
C. 1) Determination 1) The binding force of the decision whether the instant disposition is contrary to the binding force of the decision is limited to the determination on specific grounds such as the order and its premise of the decision, i.e., recognition and determination of the facts constituting the basis of the decision, and, even if the previous disposition was revoked by the ruling, it does not conflict with the binding force to dispose of the instant disposition for reasons different from the time of the previous disposition. Here, whether the same grounds exist or not should be determined on the basis of whether the grounds determined in the ruling are illegal as to the previous disposition and the basic factual relations are recognized as identical (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7705, Dec. 9, 2005). The binding force of the instant decision is that the Plaintiff failed to implement the supplementary requirements such as the change of use of the building.