Point 1,

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below presumed that there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the plaintiff took over bath business from the non-party on January 1, 1978 and operated bath business under the trade name of ○○○○ in the residential area with permission from the Gwangju City Mayor. The defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful since it was insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff used a bath business for the above period, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff used a bath business for the above period. The defendant did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, since he did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, since he had voluntarily replaced the water meters (number 2651) installed in Gwangju City from November 1, 1976 to February 1, 1979 and installed the irregular meters (number 2010).

Point 2,

Article 9 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "the court may, if necessary, conduct an ex officio examination of evidence and determine facts that the parties did not assert." Thus, the court may not determine facts that the parties did not assert without any restriction, and the facts that the parties did not clearly assert shall be investigated and determined ex officio as to the facts recorded in the records, and the facts that the parties did not assert shall be determined based on them. In light of the records, the court below cannot find that there was an error of neglect of ex officio investigation and determination of facts, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, it cannot be employed as a matter of law.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-young (Presiding Justice)