1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this decision are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff's assertion as stated in Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Although the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not related to the termination as stipulated under Article 42 of the Industrial Cluster Act, it is serious that the Defendant’s disposition of this case where the above provision applies arbitrarily to terminate the occupancy contract of this case, and the Defendant did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity to state his opinion before doing so, even though the termination of the occupancy contract of this case was an infinite administrative act, and the instant disposition of this case causes enormous damage to the Plaintiff or the financial institution that supported the Plaintiff, which is not a party to the contract of this case, and the instant disposition of this case is deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, considering all the circumstances where there was an illegal abuse or abuse of discretion.

B. (1) In a case where an administrative agency takes an administrative disposition by applying the provisions of a certain Act to a certain legal relationship or fact-finding, if there is room for dispute over the interpretation of a certain legal relationship or fact-finding, as the legal doctrine is not clearly revealed, and thus, it cannot be said that even if an administrative agency took an administrative disposition by erroneously interpreting it, it merely misleads the facts constituting the requirements for the disposition, and it cannot be said that there

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du25107, Oct. 25, 2012). In general, even if there are any defect or procedural defect that deviates from or abused discretionary power in any administrative disposition, if such defect or procedural defect is not serious, such cause, in principle, falls under a ground for revocation, not abruptive invalidation.