logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.09.04 2014누46364
개발행위불허가처분취소
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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff also asserts that the disposition in this case is unlawful since the defendant did not go through prior notice and hearing procedures prior to the disposition in this case, and that the disposition in this case is unlawful due to procedural defects, and ② the disposition in this case has been made as it deviates from discretion and is unlawful.

However, the disposition of this case constitutes a rejection disposition against the application of the so-called "beneficial administrative act" and it cannot be deemed as an "disposition that restricts the rights and interests of the parties" as it does not directly restrict the rights and interests of the parties, barring any special circumstance, since it constitutes a rejection disposition against the application of this case, and it does not constitute a "disposition that restricts the rights and interests of the parties" (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du674, Nov. 28, 2003). Thus, there are no special circumstances to recognize that the disposition of this case constitutes a disposition that restricts the rights and interests of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's first argument is without merit, and the first instance court's judgment, which cited the above above, cannot be deemed as an abuse of discretionary power (see Supreme Court Decision 6Da14, Jun. 14, 200), and therefore, it cannot be viewed as an abuse of the discretion of the plaintiff's second instance judgment which cited the above disposition against the plaintiff (the plaintiff's second instance court's appeal did not admit that the plaintiff's permission of this case without reasonable grounds.

3. The plaintiff's appeal is without merit.

arrow