비오톱 등급지정고시 취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance concerning this case are as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the
(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this case is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. Part 2. The "this case's land" in Part 2 for the second reason shall be changed into "Seoul Seongbuk-gu B large 500 square meters and C large 657 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the land in this case")."
Article 4(3) of the 17th sentence "Article 4(4)" shall be applied to "Article 4(4)".
After the 6th anniversary of the 17th day, the following shall be added:
“The delegation of delegated duties may be prescribed within the scope of delegation of delegated matters in accordance with the purpose of individual Acts and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da59295, Jan. 17, 2008). The public notice of this case is based on the current status of the land of this case, and it cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that there is no provision on compensation for violation of the principle of proportionality as seen below. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion to the different purport is rejected.
[] Parts 8, 3, and 10 of the 8th page shall be written by the following:
On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted an application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim seeking the revocation of the instant public notice. However, although the Defendant’s public notice and the instant public notice were separate dispositions, it is closely related to the Plaintiff’s grounds for illegality as asserted against the public notice of June 18, 2015 while filing the instant lawsuit, and the same grounds for illegality as alleged against the instant public notice are identical.