1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: Article 28 of the first instance court's "Article 29 of the first instance court's "Article 28" shall be read as "Article 29" and the defendant's additional assertion in the first instance court's "Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act" and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited, except for the determination that the defendant's additional assertion in the first instance court is as follows.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that medical facilities can only be viewed as incidental facilities of medical facilities only when they are funeral halls for the convenience of funeral for the deceased in the pertinent hospital. The defendant asserts to the effect that the funeral hall of this case is facilities for the use of outside persons other than the deceased in the instant hospital, and thus, it cannot be viewed as incidental facilities of medical facilities.

According to subparagraph 1 of Article 36 of the Medical Service Act, and Article 34 [Attachment Table 3] subparagraph 20 (d) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, a general hospital, hospital, oriental medical hospital, or convalescent hospital may establish a funeral hall for the convenience of funeral, such as the dead in the relevant hospital for the convenience of funeral. Even according to the above provision, it is difficult to see that the funeral hall of this case exclusively constitutes a funeral hall, which is an incidental facility to the medical institution, and it cannot be deemed that the funeral hall of this case is an incidental facility to the medical institution. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is groundless.

B. In addition, even though the Defendant intended to use the second underground parking lot from the beginning of the Plaintiff A as a funeral hall, the Defendant changed the use of the parking lot to the water treatment room, main fact, etc. to the funeral hall in order to avoid the reflection of neighboring residents and the Defendant’s rejection disposition that cannot be disregarded during the new construction of the instant building, and then changed the parking lot again to the funeral hall. The Plaintiff Company’s application for the change of the indication of the building that mobilized the unlawful method