청과부류 거래방법 지정처분 취소청구
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be those resulting from the participation in the appeal;
1. The contents asserted in the trial by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) in the trial of the first instance do not significantly differ from the contents of the Defendant’s assertion in the trial of the first instance, except for the addition of these safety defenses as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and even if the Defendant and the Intervenor’s assertion were to be reviewed together with the evidence submitted by the parties in the first instance trial and this court,
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used or the corresponding part is added as follows, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 3 2 of the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural Products shall be applied to the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products.
Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that when an administrative agency takes a disposition, it shall present the grounds and reasons therefor to the party concerned. This purport is to exclude the arbitrary decision of the administrative agency and to allow the party concerned to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. Therefore, in full view of the contents stated in the written disposition, relevant statutes and the overall process, etc. up to the disposition, it is sufficiently possible to find out whether the disposition was taken for any reason, and thus, if it is deemed that there is no particular hindrance to the party’s moving into the administrative remedy procedure, it cannot be said that the disposition is unlawful, even if the grounds and reasons for the disposition are not specified in the written disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du18571, Nov. 14, 2013).