업무정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for appeal asserted by the Plaintiff by the judgment of the court of first instance are different significantly from the allegations in the court of first instance.
In other words, the Plaintiff and the employees of the instant facilities did not intentionally neglect the basic protection and treatment of inmates D at the time of the instant occurrence, and thus, the instant disposition did not exist, and even if not, in light of all the circumstances such as the circumstance of the instant occurrence, the instant disposition was abused or abused the discretionary power.
However, even if the circumstances under which the plaintiff emphasizes again in the trial and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 11 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) submitted in addition, are reviewed again, it is recognized that the first instance court did not accept all the plaintiff's arguments in light of the circumstances as stated in its holding.
Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following contents after the fifth and sixth of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【Additional Contents” Inasmuch as sanctions imposed on violation of administrative laws are sanctions imposed on the objective facts that constitute a violation of administrative laws in order to achieve the administrative purpose, barring special circumstances, such as where the perpetrator’s failure to perform his/her duties is not caused, it may be imposed even if there is no intentional or negligent act on the violator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003). The fact that the employees of the instant facilities under the direction and supervision of the Plaintiff neglected the basic protection of D is as seen above, and it is difficult to view that there is any justifiable reason that does not lead to the said employees’ failure to perform their duties, even if the Plaintiff or the employees of the instant facilities.