직권취소처분 취소
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.
Examining various facts recognized in the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, comparing and comparing them with the grounds for recognition, the fact-finding of the judgment of the first instance and various judgments based thereon are justifiable.
In addition to the evidence submitted by the court of first instance, this paper examines each of the documentary evidence Nos. 24 to 28 of the witness Gap submitted by the plaintiff at the appellate court (including the serial number).
Accordingly, the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In the appellate court, the plaintiff prepared for fire and safety accidents, such as the installation of fire prevention facilities, according to the defendant's advice and recommendation, and the defendant's recommendation changed the indication to the elderly and children's facility (other elderly and children's facility) but the disposition in this case is a deviation and abuse of discretion against the principle of trust protection.
However, in general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the act of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to the individual, second, there should be no reason attributable to the individual when the statement of opinion of the administrative agency is justified and trusted, third, the individual should have trusted the name of the opinion and should have engaged in any act based on it. Fourth, by the administrative agency's disposition contrary to the above statement of opinion, it should result in infringing the individual's interest in trust.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Du19070 Decided March 9, 199, Supreme Court Decision 2004Du46 Decided June 9, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Du59239 Decided December 13, 2018, etc.). The evidence presented in the instant case alone is insufficient to recognize the above Defendant’s act as the Defendant’s public opinion, and otherwise, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant expressed a public opinion that is the subject of trust to the Plaintiff.