액화석유가스충전소배치계획고시 폐지처분 취소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding and adding some of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Paragraph (2) of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, since Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited.
The Seoul High Court's "Seoul High Court 2013Nu46756" shall be changed to "Seoul High Court 2013Nu46756" in the part of the first instance judgment from 3rd to 15th.
Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance shall be changed to "Incheon-gu G" of Part 8.
The Defendant’s principal safety defense as to the assertion on the addition in the trial at the trial. The Defendant, based on the instant notice, filed an application for designation as a liquefied petroleum gas charging business entity based on the Plaintiff’s application for designation, but the instant notice was abolished, and thus, cannot be designated as a business entity by the instant notice. Thus, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition is a
Judgment
A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an illegal administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking the restoration to the original state by removing an illegal state caused by such an illegal disposition and protecting or remedying the rights and interests infringed or interfered with such disposition, and thus cancellation of such illegal
If reinstatement is impossible, there is no benefit to seek cancellation.
In principle, in cases where the system is abolished due to the amendment or repeal of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes after a disposition of denial, rejection, return, etc. by an administrative agency with respect to an application for permission, patent, authorization, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du8538, Jan. 11, 2007), the benefit of a lawsuit seeking revocation of the relevant disposition shall be denied, in principle, since there is no possibility that the benefit infringed by the relevant disposition may be recovered (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu379, Jun. 11, 199).