주민등록전입신고거부처분취소
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 summary of the case and the facts premised on the case
A. The summary of the instant case pertains to the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the Defendant’s refusal to accept the move-in report, alleging that the Plaintiff refused to accept the move-in report on the ground of a plan to process the move-in report, which restricts the Defendant’s transfer to D, and that the Plaintiff actually resides in the reported domicile and thus
The first instance judgment dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had his/her residence for at least 30 days in his/her residence, and the Plaintiff appealed against this.
[Attachment of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes]
B. Evidence 【Evidence 【A” and the purport of the entire pleadings (i.e., the Plaintiff is a person operating a funeral in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C (D 40 Dong 26, hereinafter “D address”) and the Defendant is the head of the Dong who is delegated the authority of the head of the Gu to accept a transfer report of resident registration with the head of the Dong who is in charge of affairs related to resident registration pursuant to Article 2(1) and (2) of the
On August 17, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the transfer of resident registration to the Defendant based on Article 16(1) of the Resident Registration Act on the ground that the former resident registration place was transferred to Seoul, Gangnam-gu M, 302, the former resident registration place, and the former resident registration place was changed to his/her domicile.
Consolidatedly, the Defendant refused to accept the move-in report by the Defendant, on September 3, 2015, sent to the Plaintiff a document to the effect that he would refuse to accept the move-in report by the Plaintiff based on the “Plan for Handling D move-in Report” that restricts the Plaintiff’s transfer to D, and the document
2. Whether the key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff was a person who had a basis of living in the relevant address for the purpose of residing as a basis of living for at least 30 days (the Defendant’s assertion), and the Defendant is the place of business in which the Plaintiff moved to move-in D.