(a) The case holding that a disposition of non-permission on the ground of the father's consent to the application for permission on the land which is not located within the military facility protection zone is unlawful;

B. In an appeal litigation, whether an administrative agency may assert a ground for disposition on the ground that the ground for the initial disposition and the basic factual relations are different from those of the original disposition (negative)

(c) The case holding that the rejection of an application for permission from the head of the competent military unit on the grounds of non-permission cannot be added to the grounds of non-permission that it is legitimate in light of the public interest in the location adjacent to the ammunition.

(a) The case holding that, in granting permission to sell petroleum to establish and operate a gas station on the ground as a land located outside the military facility protection zone from the beginning, non-permission disposition based only on the consent of the commander of the above jurisdictional unit on the ground of no legal ground for consultation with the Minister of National Defense or the commander of the jurisdictional unit or obtaining such consent, is unlawful.

B. In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, an administrative agency can add or modify a new ground for disposition only to the extent that it is recognized as identical to the original ground for disposition in relation to the basic factual relations, and is not allowed to assert a ground for disposition on the ground of a separate fact that is not recognized as identical to the basic facts.

C. The case holding that where the defendant rejected the application for permission for petroleum retail business on the ground that the land which is the original business place was located in the military protection facility zone and the military unit commander's consent was not obtained, but in the lawsuit, the above land was located near the ammunition and thus, the rejection of the application for permission is legitimate in light of the public interest, such as public safety and the protection of military installations, the two are separate reasons for non-permission, which are not recognized as identical to the basic facts, and thus, it cannot be added as the grounds for non-permission.

(a) Articles 3 and 7 of the Protection of Military Installations Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu694 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987,1404) 88Nu6160 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989,1175) 88Nu9299 delivered on December 8, 1989 (Gong190,270)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Busan Metropolitan City Maritime Affairs

Busan High Court Decision 90Gu1540 delivered on November 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, under the premise that the plaintiffs filed an application for permission for petroleum retail business to install and operate gas stations on the land of this case owned by them, the defendant sought consultation on whether to grant permission to the head of the Army (Incidental No. 1 omitted) unit, which is the neighboring unit, pursuant to Article 7 of the Protection of Military Installations Act on the premise that the land of this case is located within the military facility protection zone under Article 3 of the same Act, and the above application for permission was rejected on the ground that the commander of the above unit agrees to do so on the ground that he did not consent for the reasons as stated in the reasoning of the judgment. The court below held that the land of this case is connected to the national highways of the 2nd line facing Busan Shipping Daegu, Busan, and that the land of this case was adjacent to the national highways of the Gyeongsan-gun National Highway, and that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the land of this case or the military facility protection zone of this case without the consent of the Minister of National Defense for the reasons that there was no change in the above land or military facility protection zone of this case.

2. In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, an administrative agency can add or modify a new reason for disposition only to the extent that it is recognized identical to the original reason and basic factual relations, and it is not allowed to assert a ground for disposition on the ground of a separate fact that is not recognized identical to the basic factual relation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu694, Jul. 21, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6160, Jun. 27, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8929, Dec. 8, 1989; 90Nu9544, Sept. 24, 1991).

According to the facts established by the court below, it is clear that the defendant rejected the application for the permission of this case on the ground that the land of this case was not consistent with the consent of the head of the competent military unit located within the military protection zone, and the defendant's ground for disposition newly added as the ground for non-permission in the lawsuit of this case is located near the marg of ammunition, which is a military special facility, and the land of this case is located at a location near the marg of the marg and its effect on the public interest, such as public safety and the protection of military installations, is significantly affected in the course of using the oil transport as the marging ground for non-permission. Thus, it is legitimate that the defendant rejected the application for permission of this case from the public interest point of view of this public interest. This is a separate ground that the defendant's ground for non-permission of this case is not identical to the basic factual basis

The judgment of the court below with the same purport is just, and the judgment below does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the addition and modification of the grounds for disposition in the administrative disposition, such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are groundless.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)