beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on new arguments in the trial
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not go through the prior notice of the disposition prescribed in Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act and the hearing procedure prescribed in Article 22 (3) of the same Act while rendering the disposition of this case. Thus, procedural illegality exists.
B. According to Articles 21(1) and (4) and 22(1) through (4) of the Administrative Procedures Act, where an administrative agency imposes a duty on a party or imposes a restriction on his/her rights and interests, it shall notify the party concerned, etc. of the facts causing the disposition and the contents of the disposition, legal grounds therefor, the purport that the party concerned may submit his/her opinion, and the method of disposal when failing to submit his/her opinion. In cases where other Acts and subordinate statutes provide that a hearing shall be held or a public hearing shall be held, the party concerned, etc. shall be given an opportunity to present his/her opinion. However, in cases where a reasonable ground exists to deem that hearing of opinion is considerably difficult or clearly unnecessary due to the nature of the disposition in question, if an administrative agency did not give a prior notice or an opportunity to present his/her opinion, the administrative agency may not be exempt from revocation of the disposition by unlawful means unless it does not give a prior notice or give an opportunity to present opinions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 204Du1254, May 28, 2004).