영업의 폐업신고 수리 거부처분 취소소송
1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following judgment is added to
Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary Judgment] ① The Defendant asserts that the actual operator of the instant restaurant is entitled to report the closure of the business since he first rents the instant restaurant from the Plaintiffs and takes over the entire business facilities.
In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or change other grounds only to the extent that the grounds for the original disposition and basic factual relations are deemed identical.
Here, the identity of basic facts is determined based on the specific facts before the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition, and whether the basic social facts are identical in the basic point of view, and the additional or modified grounds were not specified at the time of the disposition, and the parties were already aware of such facts.
(1) such action shall not be deemed to have an identity with the original reason for the action.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du15586, Nov. 26, 2009). According to the evidence No. 9, the Defendant’s ground for the instant refusal disposition is that “The grounds for the instant refusal disposition is in progress with respect to the instant restaurant, and thus, it is impossible to close down the business pursuant to Article 37(8) of the Food Sanitation Act.”
However, the grounds for such a disposition and the Defendant’s addition to the grounds supporting the legality of the instant refusal disposition in the process of the instant lawsuit are deemed to have no authority to report the closure of the instant restaurant. As such, the factual identity of the basic facts is recognized by fully changing the factual basis.