City City:

Representative ○○

[Defendant-Appellant] Gyeong-gu et al.

Attorney Kim ○-○, and Kim ○

Law of United States

[Defendant-Appellant]

Litigation Performers Lee ○○

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On June 13, 1995, Dogsung (the representative: B; hereinafter referred to as 'A') was approved by the Defendant for installation of a private charnel (a private charnel house: 10,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2 from the Defendant on June 13, 1995. On June 26, 1996, A obtained permission for installation of a private charnel house (a private charnel house: 10,108 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m25,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000.

B. On May 21, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the right to permit the business of the above charnel and reported to the Defendant on May 21, 2008 on the establishment (hereinafter referred to as the “report of this case”) of a religious organization, which changed the total floor area of the above charnel to 7,007 square meters, and the number of galbages into 105 and 125 districts (hereinafter referred to as “the report of this case”).

C. The defendant, on June 18, 2008, intended to establish and manage a private charnel facility with at least 500 remains installed and managed, must establish an incorporated foundation for the purpose of the establishment and management of the charnel facility in accordance with the Civil Act. Even if the exception provisions on religious organizations are applied, the charnel hall is limited to at least 5,000 spaces, and the report of this case was rejected for reasons, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

D. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeals commission with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission on September 11, 2008, but was dismissed on November 7, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 7 through 9, Gap evidence 16 (branch number)

(B) each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff is a religious organization that maintains the identity with A or includes A, as an organization established for the installation and operation of a water supply, electric power plant, bridge, charnel facility, etc.

(2) The Enforcement Decree of the Act on Funeral Services, Etc. (Presidential Decree No. 20791, May 26, 2008) shall apply to the above charnel.

Before this Act enters into force, it constitutes an enshrinement facility already established, created, or being created in accordance with the previous provisions by a religious organization, and thus, it is not subject to the restriction on the number of safes provided for in Article 18(1) [Attachment 3] 2(c)(2)(a) of the Addenda of the same Decree (in the case of a charnel party established by a religious organization, not more than 5,000 in the case of a charnel party established by a religious organization) under Article 2 of the Addenda of the same Decree.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes.

(c) Determination.

The instant report is premised on the premise that the Plaintiff is a religious organization (which is not a foundation. There is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the deceased. The Plaintiff’s religious organization is not recognized by the Defendant.

The assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate is not permitted because it added a new ground for disposition that is not identical to the original reason for disposition. However, if Gap evidence 8 and Eul evidence 3 added the purport of the whole argument, the plaintiff reported on February 8, 2007 to establish a religious charnel house for the same purpose as the report of this case on March 15, 2007, the defendant rejected the report on March 15, 2007 due to lack of documents proving the substance as a religious organization. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant was erroneous in considering the above issue of religious organization on May 21, 2008, and stated that the plaintiff's report of this case ("1"the name of a charnel house" as the name of a religious charnel house) was "a religious charnel house for the above disposition" as one of the reasons for the plaintiff's establishment and management of charnel facilities. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the above disposition of this case should not be accepted as one of the reasons for the plaintiff's establishment and management of the above disposition of this case.

However, as follows, Gap's 1, 4, 7, 14, 14, 1 and 4 (including Serials) can be found to have the purport of body B before oral pleadings, i.e., the representative of Eul is Eul and the representative of the plaintiff is different as C; ② A is established around April 15, 1956 and was established around May 16, 1991, and it was approved to establish inspection houses from Eul (the current foundation D's assistant 4) which was established at around 2005, and the plaintiff did not have any other evidence that it was registered as a temple or religious organization after its establishment at the end of 100,000 to 105, 205, 300,000,000,000 won, including the above 1,000,000 won, and 4,000,000 won, and there was no other evidence that the plaintiff's 2,000,00 won.

Therefore, the instant disposition that rejected the instant report is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges private light;

Judges Kim Jong-chul