산지전용불허가처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s disposition of non-permission on May 21, 2015 for conversion of mountainous districts against the Plaintiff.
On March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission of mountainous district conversion for the purpose of creating a site for solar power infrastructure with respect to the forest land B in Gangseo-si (hereinafter “instant forest”). On May 21, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission of mountainous district conversion (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
However, the above disposition is illegal because it is against the binding force of the previous ruling or is abused or abused from discretion. Therefore, it should be revoked.
Article 49 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act recognizes the binding force of a judgment citing a request for judgment in order to ensure the effectiveness of a judgment.
And this binding force is also recognized not only in the text of the ruling, but also in the recognition and judgment of facts constituting the premise.
Therefore, it is not permissible to take the same disposition once again on the grounds that the disposition disposition and the relevant administrative agency are illegal and identical to the relevant disposition on the grounds that the grounds that are identical to the grounds that are determined in the judgment and basic facts are identical to the relevant disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du3201, Apr. 25, 2003). This also applies to the case where the parties have filed the same application again after the revocation ruling
This is because, after a ruling on revocation of rejection disposition is rendered strictly, there is no answer by the disposition agency for the previous application, and the "application again after the ruling" has the same meaning as "an urging to answer the previous application."
However, in this case, the disposition agency may again render a new disposition on the ground that there is no basic identity with the grounds for the previous disposition or changes in circumstances between them, which is not contrary to the binding force of the ruling.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7705, Dec. 9, 2005). Accordingly, the instant case.