beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.04.10 2018누57195

조건불이행처분 취소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following 2. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. The amended parts of the 8th page 4 through 9 are as follows. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28100, Jun. 22, 2017>

6.30. Excursion currency;

6. On July 5, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff, in writing, that the performance of the working conditions may be recommended and the cost of living benefits may be suspended if the Plaintiff refuses to comply. The self-support project implementing agency also notified the Plaintiff of the same content on several occasions before the instant disposition was rendered. Therefore, the instant disposition did not contain procedural errors.

On the other hand, in imposing obligations on the parties or restricting their rights and interests, prior notice of dispositions and granting of opportunity to submit opinions must be made between the time of the occurrence of specific grounds for dispositions and the time of the relevant disposition. It cannot be deemed that prior notice of legitimate dispositions under the Administrative Procedures Act was given even before the occurrence of specific grounds for dispositions.

In this case, as to whether there was an opportunity to give prior notice and present opinions during the period of the instant disposition after the occurrence of the cause for the instant disposition (Unauthorized absence of office of the Plaintiff), it is not sufficient to recognize the same solely on the basis of each description of the evidence No. 25-29, No. 27, and No. 28, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, the health department, the defendant's prior disposition of the instant case or notification of the designation of a conditional recipient self-support project.