인감증명보호처분취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff’s mother C (D) made an application to prevent the Plaintiff from filing an application for issuance of a certificate of seal imprint (hereinafter “instant application”) by visiting the Ansan-dong Administrative Welfare Center (hereinafter “the Center”). A public official E working for the said Administrative Welfare Center from issuing a certificate of seal imprint (hereinafter “instant application”). A public official E, working for the said Administrative Welfare Center, stated “the prohibition of issuance of a personal seal imprint” in the column for the certificate of seal imprint imprint on the same day (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and received C’s unmanned in the remarks column.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. C was hospitalized on February 23, 2014, which was written in cerebral chropic and transferred to an F hospital located in Ansan-si, and was hospitalized.
B. While C was hospitalized, C filed the instant application by adding C to the instant center while C was hospitalized, it was based on G’s will rather than C’s intention, and G was forced to affix C’s unmanned impression.
C. Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant accepted the instant application is unlawful.
While the Plaintiff had been issued a certificate of the C’s seal impression to run as the representative of the Gu H apartment I unit while in Gyeyang-gu, the apartment complex owned by C, but was not issued due to the instant disposition, and was disadvantaged by the said representative.
As a result of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff is not related to C’s certificate of seal impression, while G is related to C’s certificate of seal impression, and C’s certificate of seal impression is pretended as C and C is detached.
3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
4. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. Even if a third party is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, if the interests protected by law have been infringed by the administrative disposition, the party is entitled to obtain the decision of propriety by filing a revocation suit.
Here, this refers to the following.