logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.07.04 2018누67123
건축허가취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the Plaintiff asserted in the trial while appealed, are not significantly different from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance were

Therefore, this court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the first instance court's decision 4 pages 9 is "only because it is just "..."

No. 7) Following the 10th 10th am "the final judgment", the plaintiff argues that although the plaintiff engaged in a gas station business in order with H, I, K, and G, the plaintiff is not guilty of violating the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development and G to avoid heavy punishment, the plaintiff and G, and therefore, the court of the lawsuit of the lawsuit of the lawsuit of the lawsuit of the administrative lawsuit should not employ the facts of the above conviction as it is. However, although the facts established in the related criminal trial are not bound by the facts of the relevant criminal trial, the facts established in the relevant criminal trial are not proved by significant evidence in the relevant administrative litigation, and it is not acknowledged that it is difficult to adopt the facts of the relevant criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the relevant administrative litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Nu18, Jan. 27, 198; 2016Du4016, Dec. 29, 2016; and the above facts of the plaintiff's agreement on G28.

arrow