logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.14 2016가단518679
집행문부여의 소
Text

1. The head of Suwon District Court Decision 2009Kahap501 decided on the prohibition and provisional disposition for removal, such as obstruction of business between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Evidence 1, A2, A3-1 through 4, A4-1 through 5, A5-1 through 5, A6-1, 2, A7-1 through 29, A8-1 through 294, A9-1, 2, A10-1 through 7, A11, A12, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff’s title 1) The Plaintiff is undertaking the urban development project B between B and Pyeongtaek-si C. The Defendant is the chairman of the Urban Development Emergency Countermeasure Committee.

3) B Urban Development Association and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”)

(2) On January 13, 2010, the Defendant and D applied for a temporary injunction against the Defendant and D’s interference with and removal of their duties, etc. and applied for a injunction against the Defendant and D, and the Defendant and D applied for the foregoing act on January 13, 2010. “In relation to the B urban development project in progress in Pyeongtaek-si C, the Plaintiff et al. shall give a bribe to the public official in an unlawful manner; “the Plaintiff et al. shall conduct the above business in an unlawful manner;” “Revocation of the designation of the Maritime District;” “DD revoke the designation of the Maritime District;” and “the Plaintiff et al. against the Plaintiff et al. in relation to the above project,” the district court shall not make any act interfering with or impairing the Plaintiff et al.’s reputation, and it shall not have a third party perform the above act. The Defendant and D shall not have the Plaintiff receive a decision on each of the instant urban development projects association’s 300,000 won and each of the instant amounts to be paid to the Plaintiff.

The above ruling was served on the Defendant on January 18, 2010.

B. On January 13, 2015, the Defendant prevented a construction-related person from entering the instant zone to inspect the site; and on January 14, 2015, a heavy equipment necessary to prevent the entrance of a construction site from being installed on the vehicle used by him/her.

arrow