사업정지처분 취소청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's successor's claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts added or modified below, and thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. A portion used for adding or cutting;
A. The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance include both “D” and “Plaintiff-Succession Intervenor.”
B. On No. 2, No. 13 of the first instance court’s judgment, “the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit” was cited as “the judgment on the defense of this case on No. 2.” In addition, “the Defendant raises a defense that there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition against the Plaintiff” between the 13th and 14th of the said judgment. In addition, the Defendant deleted “ex officio” of the 19th of the said judgment.
C. Part 4 of the first instance court's decision No. 8 of the first instance court's decision (the instant lawsuit is lawful on the premise that the instant lawsuit is lawful), "3.3. Judgment as to the claim of the Plaintiff's succeeding intervenor is rendered."
Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that "a summary of the plaintiff's assertion" shall be "a. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion".
E. Subsequent to the 8th judgment of the first instance court, there was no material, “(the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor did not have been exposed to the violation of the Petroleum Business Act as the gas station was operated for not less than 25 years. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion that the act of violation first committed the act of violation and that the act of violation was committed for not less than 5 years, and that the act of violation was committed for more than 5 years. However, in the form of the provision, the above mitigation criteria should be interpreted to be determined on the basis of the Plaintiff who committed the act of violation. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor was without merit).”
(f)Paragraph 9 and 10 of the judgment of the first instance.