(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.06 2015누62431

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) 서울고등법원 2016.04.06 2015누62431

도시관리계획입안거부처분취소

Text

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.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing this case as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

[Additional Decision] The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case which did not consider such a matter properly is unlawful, while the construction of a road is a way to harmonize public and private interests as proposed by the plaintiff in the trial of a party.

However, in full view of the fact that the instant land, recognized by the evidence admitted by the first instance court as above, was designated as a natural green area, development-restricted zone, and mountainous district for public interest, the public interest value of the said land, the details, location, and necessity of the road proposed by the Plaintiff, and the interests of the owners of other land, it is difficult to deem that the materials presented by the Plaintiff and the circumstances cited by the Plaintiff are insufficient to deem that the Defendant did not completely balance the interest in the instant disposition

It is true that Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City bears the duty of removing toilets, sports facilities, etc. and delivering the relevant land to the plaintiff in accordance with the relevant civil judgment. However, it cannot be said that the proposal of urban management planning proposed by the plaintiff should be accepted solely on such circumstances.

In addition, even if the record is examined, there is no other illegal causes that the defendant violated the principle of proportionality or abused discretion.

According to this, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

2. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion shall be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in conclusion as above.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed because it is without merit.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-의정부지법 2004. 10. 11. 선고 2004구합874 판결

-인천지방법원 2016.10.12 2014재나84

-인천지방법원 2018.09.11 2017재나78

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.05.29 2014재가단55

-서울고등법원 2015.10.08 2015누32751