logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.09.28 2017구합70588
교습정지처분취소 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 26, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the “Jamamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscambamscam which was operated by the future Amamcamscam Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Amamscamscamscamscamscamscamscambamscamscamscamscamscam on November 16, 2016

B. As a result of conducting a fact-finding survey on the instant private teaching institute on June 23, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspending lessons for 14 days to the Plaintiff on July 14, 2017, on the ground that the instant private teaching institute falls under the aggregate of the second violation (15 points), the second violation (10 points), the second violation (10 points), the second violation (5 points), the second violation (5 points), the second violation (10 points), the second violation (10 points) of the registration (10 points) of the change of the facilities and equipment, and the second violation (40 points) of the registration (10 points) of the change of the facilities and equipment.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 through 7 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In calculating the penalty points on which the instant disposition was based, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff imposed aggravated penalty points on the premise that the effect of sanctions on the instant disposition was succeeded to due to the act of violation committed by the Plaintiff prior to the operation of the instant private teaching institute, on the premise that the Plaintiff’s management of the instant private teaching institute and the effect of sanctions on the instant violation was succeeded.

However, in order to recognize the succession of the administrative sanctions, all of the grounds for the disposition of this case constitute a hostile disposition, not an physical disposition, and there should be individual provisions of succession, such as Article 78 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 11-3 of the Public Health Control Act, and Article 40 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act. However, the Private Institutes Act, which is the grounds for the disposition of

In addition, the plaintiff is simply the plaintiff.

arrow