손해배상(기)
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.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where a judgment is added as set forth in the following paragraph (2).
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant’s prior notice of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the type of business was erroneously indicated in the clothes repair or that prior notice was given to the Plaintiff, and that prior notice was not indicated in the third prior notice, so the Defendant’s prior notice to the Plaintiff was not given.
Therefore, the administrative vicarious execution disposition dated October 7, 2016, which was based on this, is illegal, and not only based on the illegal preceding disposition but also on the illegal notification of a warrant of vicarious execution that erroneously states the type of business, is also illegal.
B. Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that in cases where an administrative agency imposes an obligation on a party or imposes a restriction on his/her rights and interests, the administrative agency shall notify in advance the parties concerned of the matters such as the title of the disposition, name or title and address of the party, facts causing the disposition, and legal basis for the disposition, and the submission of opinions, if the opinion is not submitted. The purport of the above provision is to provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to state their opinions before making an indive disposition so that appropriate disposition can be made by providing them
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 10, 21, 22, and 23, the plaintiff's name and the guidance for submission of opinions was served on April 25, 2016, which entered the plaintiff's domicile, but was returned to the plaintiff's domicile. On April 21, 2016, service by public notice was concurrently carried out by public notice; the defendant's employee tried to deliver prior notice and guidance for submission of opinions on June 16, 2016, which entered the plaintiff's name and address.