Korea Disabled Veterans Association (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Yoon-zyon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business (Law Firm Apex, Attorneys Seo-hee et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

December 10, 2019

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2019Guhap63843 decided September 6, 2019

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s revocation disposition of direct production verification against the Plaintiff on April 30, 2019 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasons for this case are as follows: ① the court’s reasoning is to be stated in the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s first instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s first instance court’s revocation date, its second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s ground.

【Supplementary Part】

According to the above facts, it can be known that the confirmation of direct production, which had been effective at the time of the instant disposition, had been filed by the Plaintiff during the period during which the restriction on application by the prior disposition does not exist, that is, during the period during which the restriction on application by the instant disposition does not exist. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a defect in violation of Article 11(5)3 of the Act on Support of Development of Market for the Plaintiff’s above application. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is not acknowledged as the

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition does not retroactively revoke the current valid direct production confirmation at the time of its issuance, but does not go against the formation power or binding force of the instant stay of execution. However, even if the instant disposition sets the period of revocation restriction from February 18, 2019 to August 2, 2019, which is the end of the period of validity of the instant stay of execution due to the instant stay of execution, the period of revocation restriction does not go against the formation power or binding force of the instant stay of execution. However, as long as the instant disposition sets the period from February 18, 2019 to August 2, 2019, the Plaintiff’s request for confirmation of direct production by the Plaintiff is against Article 11(5)3 of the Act on the Promotion of Real Estate Production, the instant disposition cannot

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)