징계처분취소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
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 concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the plaintiffs' arguments in the court of first instance as to this case as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion was subject to the instant disciplinary action on the ground that the Defendant did not undergo the consultation procedure on the premise that the instant report was a modification of the business plan without minor matters.
However, the court of first instance held that the instant disciplinary action was lawful on the ground that the instant report constitutes a minor change in the business plan, but the instant report violated the duty of confirmation notification under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act. This is unlawful since the Defendant violated the principle of pleading by deciding that a disciplinary action was lawful on the ground that the Defendant did not assert his/her claim, and the Defendant added and changed the grounds for a disciplinary action that
B. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 10 (including additional numbers) and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the disciplinary ground against the plaintiffs at the time of the instant disciplinary action was approved on the condition that the instant development project would comply with the contents of the consultation on environmental impact assessment under the condition that the buildings and facilities located in the project district would be lower than I, and thus, the project operator would not accept the approval for modification or violate the duty of good faith under Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act, even if the project operator would make an application for modification with the purport that the height of the building would be higher than I differently from the original conditions of approval.