부작위위법확인
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows. The court’s explanation on the instant case is to modify or delete the text of the judgment of the first instance as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except where this court adds a judgment to this court. Thus, it is to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the
The amendment or deletion part of the judgment of the court of first instance changes into “a claim for confirmation of illegality of omission” and “a preliminary claim” to “a claim for confirmation of the status of a cash clearing agent” respectively.
The part of the first instance judgment 4th 11 to 16th '2th '2th '2' is changed as follows.
: '2 The lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission in an appeal litigation is permitted as long as there is an omission by an administrative agency, and the disposition is based on the premise that the disposition is not made, so the time of disposition cannot be considered as the basis for judgment of illegality. Since it is interpreted that the purpose of this lawsuit is to correct the current state of illegality by confirming illegality of omission, it is reasonable to determine the time of conclusion of oral argument.
Therefore, in the first instance judgment of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the first instance judgment of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and the second and second five acts are deleted.
2. The plaintiff's additional judgment in this court clearly stated that the plaintiff did not intend to conclude a contract for sale in cash, and as the defendant consented thereto, the plaintiff constitutes a person subject to settlement in cash. Even if it is not so, since the project implementation plan in this case was changed and the project implementation plan in this case had a significant impact on the rights and obligations of the union members, the procedure for applying for change of the usual sale in lots conducted around March 2014 constitutes a new procedure for sale in lots, and as long as the plaintiff did not apply for
Then, I argue that ‘the matter' is.
The Plaintiff.