지하수폐공조치명령취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following “the second order of February”. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part of the first instance court's decision No. 5-3-10-2) part of the first instance court's decision No. 5 is as follows. 2) If there is a defect in the administrative act, the disposition agency which has conducted the administrative act as to the claim No. 2) may revoke it by itself, even without any separate legal basis. However, when the disposition agency cancels the administrative disposition, it may revoke it only if it is highly possible to justify the disadvantage of the party to the public interest when compared with the necessity of the public interest to cancel it with the necessity of the public interest, such as the protection of trust and the infringement of the stability of legal life, etc. In addition, if the defect of the administrative disposition is due to the party's concealment of facts or the application by other fraudulent methods, the party could have known that the profit from the disposition was illegally acquired.
As such, it shall not be an abuse of discretionary power, even if it is not considered by an administrative agency as well as that it is not possible to invoke the trust interest in its disposition.
On the other hand, whether there was an act of filing an application through concealment or other fraudulent methods should be determined based on the basis of all relevant persons such as the other party of the administrative agency and the mandatarys delegated by the latter.
In full view of the evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du16111, Nov. 27, 2014). (B) and the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 6, the Plaintiff’s ground water in the course of consultation on the environmental impact assessment of the instant project, where water supply of a golf course is supplied as a dynasium in the process of consultation on the environmental impact assessment of the instant project, but where the installation of water supply