1. On June 20, 2014, the revocation of the Defendant’s revocation of the establishment of a religious welfare hall against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a report with the Defendant on the installation of a 72.56 square meters of a religious facility Franchipo-dong 48, Gu Seo-gu 443 square meters of a religious facility Franchi-dong 72.56 square meters of a religious facility Franchi-dong (hereinafter “instant franchi-dong”). On February 1, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the installation of the installation by setting the period of business of the instant franchi-dong 48 square meters in accordance with the details of the report.

B. Around February 2013, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on the change of the number of the locking mouths of the instant Party into eight hundred and twenty-eight items. On March 13, 2013, the Defendant determined the number of the locking mouths of the instant Party and notified the Plaintiff of the implementation of the installation by setting the number of the locking mouths of the instant Party according to the details of the change.

C. On June 19, 2014, the Defendant sent a reply from the head of the education center in the Office of Education, the head of the education center in Pyeongtaek-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, and the head of the education center in question that it is impossible to install a charnel house pursuant to Article 6(1)5 of the School Health Act because the instant charnel Party was located at a place located within 52 meters from the entrance and boundary line of 38 meters from the boundary line, and on June 20, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the notification of the execution of each of the installation and implementation of charnel Party as of February 1, 2013 and March 13, 2013, respectively, on the ground that the instant charnel Party site in question is school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone, and it is impossible to install an enshrinement facility pursuant to Article 6(1)5

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition’s Disposition Nos. 1, 2, 1 through 6, and 10

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not give prior notice of the instant disposition in violation of Articles 21(1) and 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act while rendering the instant disposition, and did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity to present his opinion. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful on the ground that the procedural defect is grave defect. 2) The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the implementation of each installation report and the alteration report on the salary table.