logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2017.12.07 2017누12924
면허취소처분 취소
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 of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, in addition to the dismissal of the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 8 of the Second Instance “The period during which the instant sales are suspended” or “the period during which the instant sales are suspended” is followed from January 1, 2013 to February 28, 2013.

In addition, the following is added to the third part of the first part, which is the defendant's disposition against the plaintiff, the defendant's violation of the disposition of this case is not specified to the extent that it is possible to know that the plaintiff was subject to the disposition of this case due to any transactional act with respect to the business period, size, transaction partner, etc.

Part 3. The following shall be added to the following:

C. Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that when an administrative agency takes a disposition, it shall provide the basis and reasons for the administrative agency’s arbitrary decision to the relevant party. This is intended to exclude the administrative agency’s arbitrary decision and allow the relevant party to properly cope with it in the administrative remedy procedure. Thus, in a case where it is sufficiently known that a disposition was made by the relevant party at the time of the disposition in full view of the contents of the written disposition, relevant statutes, and the overall process, etc. up to the relevant disposition, and where it is deemed that there was no particular obstacle to the party’s objection to the procedure for administrative remedy,

Even if so, it cannot be said that the disposition is illegal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20362 Decided December 10, 2009). We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine.

According to Gap evidence 6-2, the notice of cancellation of alcoholic beverage sales business is given.

arrow