(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.01.17 2016구합1686

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.01.17 2016구합1686

부작위위법확인

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a resident of the Gyeongbuk-gun adjacent to the instant land, who resides in D.

B. On January 6, 2011, the Plaintiff, along with 11 village residents, demanded the Defendant to open the instant grave (hereinafter referred to as “instant grave”) located within the 50 meters away from his/her own residence, and the Defendant requested the Defendant to open the instant grave to E, an infant of the deceased C on April 27, 2011, and notified the Plaintiff.

C. After that, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant several times, and the Defendant finally respondeded to the Plaintiff on March 10, 2016 to the effect that “The Plaintiff recommended the E to voluntarily relocate the instant grave, but an administrative agency does not have any ground to order or enforce the relocation of the grave.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal demanding the Defendant to open the instant grave illegally installed. However, on May 30, 2016, the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not entitled to demand the Defendant to open the instant grave.”

E. On the other hand, on September 2, 2016, the lawsuit of this case pending, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of “the reply following the petition for reburial of illegal graveyard” to the effect that “the Plaintiff has already been notified several times with respect to the instant grave, and there was a conversion of mountainous district in relation to the creation of illegal graveyards and forest damage, and if there is any illegality, it will be dealt with in accordance with the relevant Acts, if any, in accordance with the relevant laws.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 2 through 5, 9, Eul's 2, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's alleged co-owned property and co-owned property.

참조조문

-장사 등에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.12.22 2016고단6589

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.06.08 2015가단35372

-대구지방법원 상주지원 2014.07.15 2013고단508

-대구지방법원 2019.07.11 2019나304231

-제주지방법원 2017.04.07 2015가단14838