1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a foundation that is not a corporation that professes the inspection belonging to A religious organizations, and owns a building of 4,038 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun budget-gun (hereinafter “instant application site”) and its ground.

B. On August 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a report with the Defendant on August 8, 2018, stating that he/she shall establish a charnel hall where 4,99 remains remains in the place of the instant application pursuant to Article 15(1) of the former Funeral Services, etc. Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16376, Apr. 23, 2019; hereinafter “the Funeral Act”).

(2) In accordance with Article 1 (1) of the Funeral Act, B shall not be deemed to be a religious organization pursuant to Article 15 (5) of the Funeral Act and Article 18 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act. (2) In accordance with Article 1 (1) of the said Act, B shall not be deemed to be a religious organization.

On September 18, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it would return the instant report for the following reasons:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On October 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission, which received a dismissal ruling on December 20, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] A7-11, 15, 19 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), 4, 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a religious organization that has both human, material, and legal factors as a religious organization and has engaged in religious activities. Thus, the Plaintiff constitutes a religious organization that can establish a fright party pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Funeral Act.

B. Even if the wing party is established in the instant application site, there is no risk of undermining public welfare such as health and sanitation of neighboring residents and efficient utilization of land, and thus, the Defendant’s refusal to accept the instant report may not be deemed necessary for a serious public interest.

3. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as specified;

4. The case.