beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition under Paragraph (2) below, since the judgment on the violation of the principle of protection of trust alleged by the plaintiff again in the trial of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with
2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion of violation of the principle of protecting trust
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion agent visited the Defendant immediately after obtaining approval for the use of the building of this case. At the time, the Defendant’s public opinion statement to the effect that if the Defendant’s public official fails to obtain a tax invoice even after the completion of construction work, he would apply for confirmation of the fact of transaction at that time. The Plaintiff did not apply for confirmation of the fact of transaction by trust and did not file an application for confirmation of the fact of transaction. The Defendant’s refusal of confirmation of the fact of transaction of this case on the grounds that
B. In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the act of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency's public opinion that is the object of trust to an individual should be the name of the public opinion that is the object of trust to the individual, second, the administrative agency's opinion that is justifiable and trusted to the individual should not be attributable to the individual, third, the individual should have trusted and trusted that opinion name. Fourth, the administrative agency's disposition contrary to the above opinion name should result in infringing on the individual's interest in trust. If any administrative disposition satisfies these requirements, it is unlawful that it goes against the principle of the protection of trust unless it is likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party.
As to the instant case, D Witnesses of the Health Council and the Prosecutor of the Court.