1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case being cited or added by the following parts, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. On No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “No. 7” is deleted.

B. The following parts are added between the fourth and fourth of the judgment of the first instance.

According to the Administrative Procedures Act, the plaintiff argued that when the hearing is completed, the presiding judge of the hearing shall, without delay, submit the records of the hearing and other related documents to the administrative agency, but in this case, the date of the hearing is too late on May 27, 2014, and the date of the preparation of the hearing records is too late on June 16, 2014. However, the hearing system is intended to consider the possibility of correction of the illegal cause by granting parties an opportunity to submit materials favorable to the reasons of administrative disposition, and to achieve the careful and proper disposition. Thus, the above hearing procedure cannot be deemed unlawful merely on the ground that the date of preparation of the hearing records is delayed for 20 days from the date of the hearing execution date. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected."

C. The following parts are added between the 8th and 7th of the judgment of the first instance.

In light of the purport that "the plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in the activities with the "Budget Protocol prepared by the defendant" and stated that "the revocation deferment" is stipulated, the defendant expressed his/her opinion that the disposition in this case will be taken by putting the result of supplementation until July 31, 2014, and therefore, the disposition in this case made before July 31, 2014 should be deemed to be in violation of the principle of self-detention or the principle of protection of trust (section 4 of preparatory brief on March 15, 2016).