생계대책 용지의 대상제외 처분취소 청구의 소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for relocation and livelihood measures by asserting that the Defendant had been engaged in livestock farming business in the land C at the time of entertainment incorporated into the project district of the B Public Housing Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”). On June 29, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff had not been verified that he had been engaged in livestock farming business within the instant project district before the base date,” and that it does not constitute a person subject to relocation and livelihood measures.
B. On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant’s above disqualified notice. However, the Defendant filed an objection against the Plaintiff on August 31, 2015.
For the same reason, the Plaintiff notified that he/she does not constitute a person subject to relocation and livelihood measures (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the instant disposition was served on September 4, 2015 on the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 4-1 and Eul evidence No. 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
A. The Defendant’s lawsuit of this case on the main defense of the instant case is unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of 90 days from September 4, 2015, which was served on the Plaintiff by the instant disposition.
B. The main text of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “a revocation lawsuit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date when the person becomes aware of the disposition, etc.,” and Article 20(3) provides that “the period prescribed in paragraph (1) shall be a peremptory term.”
In this case, the facts that the notice of this case was served on the Plaintiff on September 4, 2015 are as recognized in the preceding 1th, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit only after April 19, 2016, which was 90 days after the lapse of 90 days from the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.
The defendant's main defense pointing this out is justified.
3. Conclusion