영업정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as set forth in the following B. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was used by the court, shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
Inasmuch as the detailed plan submitted by the Plaintiff under the instant corrective order was approved by the Defendant and faithfully implemented it, the Defendant cannot revoke the instant corrective order, and even if the order was revoked, the effect of the corrective order already occurred does not disappear. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s submission of a detailed plan to the Defendant to obtain approval from the Defendant was in accordance with the instant administrative order issued by the Defendant on July 11, 2014. The instant administrative order was based on Article 27 of the Tourism Promotion Act, and was not fulfilled, and was in accordance with the former Tourism Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 13127, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter “former Tourism Promotion Act”).
(2) Article 35(2)2 of the former Tourism Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2501, Jul. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 25175, Jul. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 2510, Jan. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 25188, Feb. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 25148, Feb. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 2517, Feb. 1, 2014).