1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (including “related Acts and subordinate statutes” but excluding “3. conclusion”) except for the modification of the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The phrase “28” in the above-mentioned three parallels shall be raised from the two pages of the revised part into “Article 28.”

5 Under 5, the term “witness F’s testimony” shall be read as “witness D and F’s testimony.”

10 The 5 to 11th day below shall be as follows:

(4) As to deviation from or abuse of discretionary power, a person disputing the validity of the administrative act bears the burden of asserting and proving the relevant administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du43319, Jan. 10, 2019). Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates or abused from the scope of discretionary power under the generally accepted social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the content of the offense constituting the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant administrative act, and all the relevant circumstances, etc. with the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages

Therefore, the legality of the disposition should be determined not only in accordance with the disposition standards but also in accordance with the provisions and purport of the relevant statutes.

Therefore, the pertinent disposition cannot be deemed legitimate. However, barring reasonable grounds to believe that the pertinent disposition does not conform with the Constitution or laws by itself, or that a punitive administrative disposition based on the above disposition disposition is considerably unreasonable in light of the content of the act of violation and the content and purport of the relevant statutes, it shall not be deemed that the pertinent disposition has deviates from the scope of discretion or has abused discretion.