1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is an incorporated foundation that obtained permission for establishment on January 13, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "permission for establishment of this case") with the discovery of sports human resources and support projects, etc. as its target business.

After undergoing the hearing on March 14, 2017, the Defendant revoked the permission for establishment of the instant case on March 20, 2017, based on the following reasons and grounds.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The details that the Defendant incurred as the cause of the instant disposition at the time of the instant disposition are as shown in attached Table 1.

The public official's criminal act was related to the establishment process of the plaintiff, a non-profit incorporated foundation with the public interest purpose of cancellation, and C exercised a comprehensive influence on the establishment and operation of the plaintiff as the old office. Unlike the purpose of establishment, the plaintiff's business was conducted to pursue the private interest of C, and the existence of the plaintiff itself harms public interest.

In the process of establishment, conglomerates voluntarily contributed to the establishment, and public officials' official illegal acts are involved.

The disposition agency that conducted an administrative act under Article 38 of the Civil Act based on the revocation of the disposition is unlawful in violation of Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act, since the plaintiff's procedural defect in the purport of the whole statement and pleading as to Gap evidence Nos. 15, Gap evidence No. 16-10 and the whole statement and pleading that the disposition of this case is unlawful, since the disposition of this case did not present evidentiary materials which form the basis of specific facts which form the basis of the disposition.

According to the purport of Supreme Court Decision 81Nu363 Decided October 26, 1982, the revocation of permission for establishment of a non-profit corporation after its establishment can be limited to cases falling under Article 38 of the Civil Act. Thus, the legal principle of “ex officio revocation of defective administrative act” cannot be a ground for revocation of permission for establishment.

The plaintiff was not aware of the illegal acts of C and public officials at all, and C's private interest.