logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.05.14 2013두19349
사업장이전변경허가취소처분취소
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, where an administrative disposition generally satisfies the external requirements for the establishment of an internal and external indication of the content, procedure and form of the administrative disposition, an administrative disposition may exist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6889, Aug. 20, 199). In a case where an administrative agency takes a disposition through a document, in principle, in accordance with the language and text of the disposition, the administrative agency should determine which disposition was taken. However, in special circumstances, such as where the language and text of the disposition is unclear, the administrative agency may interpret the content of the disposition by taking into account other circumstances, including the circumstances surrounding the disposition or the attitude of the other party after the disposition, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du18035, Feb. 11, 2010). Thus, the interpretation of an expression of intent contained in a document submitted by the administrative agency clearly establishes the objective meaning that the party gave to the act. Where such objective meaning is not clearly expressed by the parties’ language and text, it should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with social logic and norm.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18009 Decided June 8, 1993, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence. The lower court, on October 25, 2011, stated that the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant on October 25, 201 the language and purport of the application, the Defendant’s notification stating that “the transfer of business place is permitted” to the Plaintiff on November 22, 201 (hereinafter “instant notification”), and the form and language of the notification, and the instant notification.

arrow