공장신설승인불가처분취소의 소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The grounds for this part of the reasoning by the court are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article
(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this case is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance).
A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.
1) The grounds that the instant plant constitutes wastewater discharge facilities as defined in Article 2 subparag. 10 of the former Water Quality Ecosystem Act are not new grounds that have arisen after the closing of arguments in the fact-finding proceedings in the previous lawsuit. Thus, the instant disposition based on the said grounds is not allowed against the binding force of the final and conclusive judgment of the instant case. 2) Although the instant plant does not constitute wastewater discharge facilities, the instant disposition based on the different premise is unlawful.
3) Although the Defendant, on May 26, 2015, was able to take a measure of refusal on the grounds that the instant plant constitutes wastewater discharge facilities at the time of the closure of the arguments in the previous case, the instant measure was made for the reasons that existed before the closing of arguments in the previous trial court, which were later later, by unfairly delaying the disposition of refusal, and thereby making an artificial reason of refusal in order to escape the binding force of the final and conclusive judgment. This is against the substantial rule of law, the principle of protection of trust, and the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights. (B) The relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and subordinate statutes are inconsistent with the binding force of the final and conclusive judgment. (C) The binding force of the revocation final and conclusive judgment does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment on the specific grounds of illegality, such as the main and premise of the final and conclusive judgment, but even if the previous disposition was revoked, it does not conflict with the binding force of the previous disposition on the grounds that are different from the previous one.