The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is the purport of the claim and the appeal.

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the replacement of the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated below (2) and the attached Form of the judgment of this court; (b) thus, it is citing it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The 3th written judgment of the first instance court shall have 17-18 parallels as follows.

The following procedural defects in each Disposition, namely, the Defendant did not undergo the hearing procedures prescribed by Article 49 of the Infant Care Act and completed the hearing procedures.

Even if the presiding official of a hearing fails to prepare a statement and written opinion of the hearing under Articles 34(1) and 34-2 of the Administrative Procedure Act, thereby failing to reflect the result of the hearing in each of the dispositions of this case. The Plaintiff violated the Plaintiff’s right to request perusal and correction of the Plaintiff’s statement of hearing (Article 34(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act). Since the Plaintiff submitted written opinion before the date of the hearing, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff appeared and made a statement in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the Defendant closed the hearing procedure on the ground that “the Plaintiff failed to appear on the date of the hearing.”

Therefore, each disposition of this case is unlawful.

The following shall be followed from 4th 13th 13th am to 10th am of the first instance judgment:

1) As to the assertion regarding procedural defects, Article 21 and Article 22 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedure Act comprehensively and systematically construed in light of the legislative purpose of the Administrative Procedure Act and the purport of the hearing system of opinions, the phrase “where it is deemed necessary to objectively prove the facts constituting the premise of the disposition in accordance with the administrative agency’s decision that goes through a court’s trial or quasi-judicial procedure, etc., and hear the opinions in accordance with the disposition” under Article 13 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedure Act is the premise of the disposition according to the court’s judgment, etc.