1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following: (b) the 13th to 20th to 16th to 13th 16th 16th 20 of the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter “the determination as to whether to abuse or abuse of discretion”).

2. The contents of after repair;

E. (i) In a case where administrative acts are classified into binding acts and discretionary acts, the judicial review of administrative acts belonging to discretionary acts is, contrary to the judicial review of binding acts, to take account of the existence of public interest judgment based on the discretion of the administrative agency, and to examine only whether the pertinent acts are abused or abused by discretionary power, by taking into account the existence of public interest judgment based on the discretion of the administrative agency.

However, as stipulated in Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, “The discretion of an administrative agency, even if it belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency, or if it exceeds or is abused, the court may revoke it.” Thus, even an administrative agency’s discretionary act cannot be deemed completely excluded from the subject of judicial review, and if it can be deemed that there is an abuse beyond or abuse of its discretionary power, such as mistake of facts, violation of the principle of proportionality and equality, violation of the purpose of the pertinent act, or denial of motive, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Du6181 Decided July 14, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Du9625 Decided October 31, 2013, etc.). Examining the health account and the following facts and circumstances as to the instant case in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant disposition was not only erroneous as to the premise in the exercise of discretionary power by denying the value of the ALifelong Education Institute, which is a profit-making basic property secured by the Plaintiff in relation to the failure to secure a profit-making basic property.