logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.03.26 2019구단54422
기타이행강제금부과처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. D Co., Ltd. was established on February 19, 197 for the purpose of advertising materials manufacturing business, and on July 5, 2006, upon receiving a request from the Minister of Health and Welfare for the installation and management of a publicity board for the promotion of policies, and around June 201, it installed facilities for each advertisement purpose on the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B and the former C’s ground (hereinafter “each of the instant advertisements”).

B. On November 8, 2018, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of advertising production, etc. on May 25, 2017; (b) the representative of D and the Plaintiff’s representative director are the same person); (c) installed each of the instant advertisements without permission or reporting under Article 3 of the Act on the Management of Outdoor Advertisements, etc. and Promotion of Outdoor Advertisement Industry (hereinafter “ Outdoor Advertisement Act”); and (d) violated Article 4 of the same Act, ordered voluntary correction pursuant to Article 10(1) of the same Act.

C. On November 29, 2018, the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the above order, notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of charges for compelling compliance and notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of charges for compelling compliance, and did not accept the Plaintiff’s opinion, and imposed KRW 5,00,000 on the Plaintiff each of the instant advertisements on December 17, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case") . [Grounds for recognition] . [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 6 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was requested by the Minister of Health and Welfare to install advertisements on July 5, 2006, and the Minister of Health and Welfare requested the head of local government to cooperate in the installation of advertisements.

Therefore, Article 3 and Article 4 of the Outdoor Advertisements Act has been amended to apply to advertisements installed for public purposes.

However, each of the advertisements of this case is the Gu.

arrow