(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.07.25 2018누32851

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 2018.07.25 2018누32851

유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on July 26, 2016.

Reasons

1. The reasons why this part of the disposition is stated by the court are as follows. This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2 to No. 19). Thus, this part of the reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this context is the same as the judgment of the first instance). The second 3-4 of the second 2 pages “C membership” is “C stock company (hereinafter “instant company”), “23:0 in the office of 2015” shall be read as “23:00 on November 12, 2015”, and “6-7 on November 15, 2015” shall be read as “19:0-19:45 on November 15, 2015”, respectively.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The grounds for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3 to No. 6). Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the relevant part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 8 to No. 7) is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3 to No. 3 under the third to No. 7). Therefore, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the text

The following shall be added to the last place of conduct:

“E) The Deceased, in addition to E-sale business, was in charge of the business related to the inner port business, but it appears that the most important business was E-sale business. After completion of the E model complex, the Deceased was in charge of the authorization, permission, management, and sale with the O director, but after the O director retired on March 2013, 2013, he/she was in charge of the same.

The fourth 11th to the last 2th am the company of this case. 3) The circumstances and conditions at the time of discovery are as follows.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.01.09 2018누39821

-서울고등법원 2018.08.22 2017누69290

-서울고등법원 2018.08.22 2017누76069

-서울고등법원 2018.04.25 2017누69856

-서울고등법원 2017.10.18 2016누72657