beta
(영문) 부산고등법원 2014.10.31 2013누20950

어린이집 놀이시설 등록신청등 반려처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 14, 2011, the Plaintiff operated C Child Care Center (hereinafter referred to as “Child Care Center in this case”) under subparagraph 104 of 2 Dong-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “B Lending”) after obtaining authorization for the establishment of Child Care Facilities (the name of “Child Care Facilities” was changed to “Child Care Center”) from the Defendant (amended by Act No. 10789, Jun. 7, 2011) from the Defendant.

B. On April 11, 2013 through April 27, 2013, the Plaintiff installed the instant play facilities (hereinafter “instant play facilities”) on the 31.5 square meters of childcare center’s land among the site of B lending, upon obtaining the consent of B lending occupant, and on April 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of the outside play facilities of childcare centers.

C. On April 30, 2013, the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff an application for registration of the Plaintiff’s external play facilities on the ground that the establishment report for children’s play facilities in multi-family housing ought to be prior to the establishment report for children’

(hereinafter “First Disposition”) d.

On May 15, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the corrective measures on the ground that the instant play facilities were installed without permission in violation of Article 42(2) of the Housing Act and Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “second Disposition”, and both Disposition 1 and Disposition 2, hereinafter referred to as “each Disposition of this case”). 【In the absence of any dispute, the grounds for recognition, Gap’s Evidence 1, 2, Eul’s Evidence 3-1 through 15, Eul’s Evidence 2-2 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, images, and pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff installed the instant play facilities for the safety and convenience of child-care center nursery students, with the consent of BJ residents, and followed all the regulations related to the establishment of child-care center play facilities, such as Infant Care Act, children’s play facilities safety management, quality management and safety management of industrial products, and Environmental Health Act.