A. Whether a disposition authority may assert a ground for disposition or recognize a court as a ground for disposition on the ground that it is not identical to that of the initial disposition in an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition (negative)

(b) The case holding that the disposition agency cannot be added as the ground for the disposition of return on the ground that the ground for disposition newly added to the ground for return is not recognized as identical to the ground for the original disposition of return on the ground for disposition of return on the ground for return

A. In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, from the perspective of the substantial rule of law and the protection of trust in the people who are the other party to the administrative disposition, the agency can add or modify a new ground for disposition only to the extent recognized as identical in the basic factual relations with the grounds for the original disposition, and it is not allowed to assert a ground for disposition on the ground of a separate fact that is not recognized as identical with the basic factual relations, and it is not recognized as a ground for disposition by the court.

(b) The case holding that in a lawsuit claiming the revocation of the disposition to revoke the application for permission to collect earth and rocks, since the disposition agency newly added the grounds for rejection as the grounds for rejection is a separate ground that is not recognized as identical in the basic factual relations, the grounds cannot be added as the grounds for rejection.

Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act [General Case]

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6160 Decided June 27, 1989 (Gong1989,1175), 88Nu9299 Decided December 8, 1989 (Gong1990,270), and 91Nu3895 Decided February 14, 1992 (Gong192,1046)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Yang Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 90Gu447 delivered on April 4, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal ex officio before determining them.

With respect to an appeal suit seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition, from the perspective of substantial rule of law and trust protection for the people who are the other party to the administrative disposition, the agency can add or change a new reason for disposition only to the extent that it is recognized as identical in the original reason and basic factual relations, and it is not allowed to assert a separate ground for disposition on the ground that it is not recognized as identical with the basic factual relations, and it cannot be acknowledged as a ground for disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu694, Jul. 21, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9299, Dec. 8, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu70, Nov. 8, 199; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3895, Feb. 14, 1992).

According to the facts established by the court below, it is clear that the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for permission to collect earth and rocks of this case on the ground that the defendant did not submit a written consent of neighboring residents, and the ground for disposition newly added to the above ground for return in the lawsuit of this case is part of the white mountain located in the front Na-gun, Na-gun, and the area for permission of this case where the permission of this case is applied to collect earth and rocks of this case, it has a significant impact on public interest, such as noise which is considerably damaged natural landscape, noise that occurs at the time of blasting of rocks, noise that occurs at the time of blasting of earth and rocks transport vehicles, dust generation, and earth and rocks that flown from the earth and rocks collection place, and it constitutes a ground for restriction under Article 11 of the Guidelines for Handling Affairs of Collection of Earth and rocks in Forests. Thus, the above disposition is legitimate, since the defendant's ground for return of this case is a separate ground for which the identity is not recognized in its basic factual relations.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the above additional reasons alleged by the defendant is erroneous, but it is clear that the reason that the consent of neighboring residents is without the consent of the defendant does not constitute grounds such as prohibition or restriction of permission for collecting earth and stones. Thus, the defendant's request to supplement the consent of neighboring residents by requesting the plaintiff to submit the written consent of neighboring residents, and the return of the plaintiff's above application is unlawful, regardless of the fact that the permission may be denied in cases where permission is prohibited or restricted by related Acts and subordinate statutes such as the Forestry Act or where permission is acknowledged to be denied under the same relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, the decision of the court below, which received the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the above return disposition, is just, and the conclusion of the court below is eventually without merit.

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)