2018Nu65455 Application for Non-Designation, Notification and Recommendation of Private Organizations subject to Donations

Revocation of Return Decision

A

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

[Defendant, Appellant]

Minister of Strategy and Finance

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Guhap80950 decided August 31, 2018

November 20, 2018

December 11, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. On June 30, 2017, the defendant revoked the rejection disposition of designation of the non-governmental organization subject to donations against the plaintiff on the plaintiff on June 30, 2017 (the plaintiff filed in the first instance trial with the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs as the main defendant, seeking revocation of the rejection disposition of designation of the non-governmental organization subject to donations against the plaintiff on June 30, 2017, the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs sought revocation of the rejection disposition of designation of the non-governmental organization subject to donations against the defendant as the primary defendant, and then the court voluntarily

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the judgment in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts written or added, so it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs in the judgment of the court of first instance refers to "the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs", and "the Minister of Strategy and Finance" refers to

○ From the third bottom of the judgment of the first instance to the 7th 5th eth eth eth.

Then, ‘the relationship between the plaintiff and C' is a legal relation corresponding to the entrusted relation under Article 101 of the Commercial Code or the above-mentioned relation under Articles 680 through 692 of the Civil Code.'

○○ 8:5-10 of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff entered into a business agreement with C and performed the refugee support project for children, can be deemed to have performed the Plaintiff’s intended business. Even according to the above business agreement, the Plaintiff appears to have jointly carried out the refugee support project by sharing the role with C as a cooperation agency, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff is entrusted or delegated with the refugee support project for children by C. Therefore, consignment sale under the Commercial Act or the provisions and legal principles of delegation under the Civil Act cannot be applied as alleged by the Plaintiff. Business expenses paid by the Plaintiff pursuant to the above business agreement constitute “income of the Plaintiff” as the money received by the Plaintiff for the purpose of carrying out the business.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Awards and decorations for judges;

Judges Lee Jong-chul

Judge Cho Jae-soo