1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The Defendant’s act on November 7, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of this court's acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following items, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an additional administrative disposition, the agency may add or modify other grounds only to the same extent that the grounds and basic facts based on the original disposition are identical.

Here, the existence of the identity of the basic fact is determined based on whether the basic social fact is identical in the basic point of view with the specific fact prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition, and it is not allowed to claim as the grounds for disposition on the grounds of a separate fact that is not recognized as identical with the basic fact.

The reason is to realize the substantial rule of law and protect the trust of the other party to the administrative disposition by guaranteeing the other party's right of defense of the administrative disposition. The reason is that the additional or modified reason was not specified in the original disposition, but it was already existing at the time of the disposition and the other party was also aware of that fact.

(1) shall not be identical to the original disposition;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12629, Jan. 13, 2006). The Defendant asserted that the instant disposition is lawful, since the Defendant subcontracted the maintenance business of “three elevator units” in D to an elevator company, one of which the Plaintiff subcontracted the maintenance business of “three elevator units” in D, and violated the elevator facility safety management.

However, the above reasons alleged by the Defendant are different from that of the Plaintiff, which was the ground for the original disposition of the instant case, was in violation of the elevator facility safety management by subcontracting to the elevator, one of the following reasons: