도시생태현황도 고시 취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation as to the instant case is as follows, and the reasons for the court’s explanation are as follows: (a) in Articles 3 and 4, 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, excluding adding a judgment on the assertion of the defendant and the plaintiff, and thus, citing it as is,
(Other, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the appeal do not differ significantly from the contents alleged in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance court and this court are examined, the findings of fact and the judgment of the first instance court are justifiable). 2. The third party 5 through 8 of the first instance court are examined as follows.
On April 9, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the decision to maintain Grade 1 of the non-saw 1 as to the instant land for the following reasons. The results of the non-saw - C (T) and D (forest) on a field investigation (first: Sep. 11, 2015; second: December 9, 2015; third: March 11, 2016) at the City 2015 Urban Ecology status map; third: (i) there were different types of existing vegetation and non-saw 1; and (ii) there were significant changes in the ecological level of the relevant land for 10 years from the date of implementation of the field survey on the following grounds; (iii) there were significant changes in the ecological level of the relevant land for 10 years from the date of implementation of the field survey; (iv) there was a high probability of the changes in the ecological level of the relevant land for 20.15 years from the date of implementation of the field survey; and (iv) there was a high possibility that the area of the existing non-saw 20.1.