문화재매매업허가신청거부처분취소 청구의 소
1. The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on August 27, 2019 is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 29, 1993, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained permission from the head of the Gu to engage in cultural heritage trade business in Daegu-gu B, Daegu-gu; and (b) obtained permission from the head of the Gu (hereinafter “Seoul-gu, Daegu-gu,” and filed a report on closure of business on June 2, 1997.
B. On June 11, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a permit for cultural heritage trade business (hereinafter “instant previous permit”) and a permit ledger issued by the head of the Gu among Daegu, and applied for permission for cultural heritage trade business, which becomes “business place D: Simsan, Simsan, and Simsi: C.”
(hereinafter referred to as “instant application”). C.
Accordingly, on June 21, 2019 and August 5, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of documents attesting to the qualification requirements for permission for cultural heritage trade business pursuant to Article 76(1) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act. D.
On August 27, 2019, when the Plaintiff did not submit additional evidentiary documents, the Defendant rendered a disposition to return the instant application to the Plaintiff for the following reasons:
(1) A person who intends to obtain permission for cultural heritage trade business pursuant to Article 76 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act shall meet the qualification requirements, and Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides evidentiary documents of qualification, and 2) Article 76(1)3 of the same Act provides for "a person who handles cultural heritage under employment of a cultural heritage dealer for at least three years" in the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.
3) To return it to the failure to submit evidentiary documents proving the qualifications for the application. 【The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s 1 to 3, Eul’s 1 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties concerned is asserted by the head of the Gu among Daegu on June 29, 1993 on the grounds that he/she worked in the cultural heritage trade business entity "E" for at least three years.