종교단체 봉안당 설치신고 수리불가처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed the first report to the Defendant for the establishment of a religious charnels hall (hereinafter “instant charnels hall”) with the total floor area of 282.39 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant application site”), but on May 28, 2010, the Defendant notified the Defendant that the instant application against the Plaintiff is an E riparian zone where the installation of a charnels hall is restricted pursuant to the Funeral Services, etc. Act (hereinafter “the Funeral Act”).
B. Accordingly, around August 16, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a re-report on the establishment of the instant 600 YY, the installation period of which was 600. The Defendant accepted the said report on August 17, 2010.
(hereinafter “First Repair Disposition”). After July 4, 201, the Plaintiff reported on July 4, 201 to change the installation period from 600 to 2,250 Gus, and on the same day, the Defendant accepted the said report.
C. However, the ownership of the instant Party was transferred from the Plaintiff to D on September 19, 201 according to the subrogation registration by the judgment of revocation of fraudulent act, and was transferred from D to the Yellow Doctrine Co., Ltd. on June 26, 2013.
Accordingly, on June 27, 2013, the Defendant revoked the report on the establishment of the instant charnel pursuant to Article 31 of the Funeral Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff lost its ownership on the instant villa, thereby violating Article 15(1) of the Funeral Services Act and Article 7(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.
(hereinafter “former Withdrawal Disposition”). E.
On the other hand, on January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff re-acquisitions the ownership of the instant guard, and on March 12, 2014, filed a report on the establishment of the instant guard, with the Defendant on March 12, 2014. However, on April 14, 2014, the Defendant was a riparian zone in which the installation of the guard guard is restricted pursuant to Article 17 of the Funeral Act and Article 22(4)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.