logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.10.08 2020누47351
공유재산 사용허가 거부처분 취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or added, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

[Supplementary or additional parts] From 4 pages 12 to 19, the following subparagraphs are met.

[1) The gist of the defendant's assertion is as follows: ① in the first instance court and the first instance court proceedings, the defendant has no legal authority to apply for the permission of use of and benefit from the administrative property to the plaintiff; ② due to electromagnetic waves, the safety rights, health rights, and environmental rights of neighboring residents and students may be infringed; ③ as of the application for permission of use of and benefit from the administrative property to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the application for permission of use of and benefit from the land adjacent to the sports site and the application for permission of use of and benefit from the urban park; and ③ As of the application for permission of use of and benefit from the use of and benefit from the park

As a result, even if the permission for the occupation and use of the underground of the instant sports site was obtained, the Plaintiff could not implement the construction that connects the power transmission line installed as the instant construction to other power sources. ④ There is no practical benefit. ④ There is an existing power tool in which the Plaintiff had a 154kV power line in depth at approximately 4m in the road between the Plaintiff’s shooting distance in the middle city and the approximately 154k-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-V-U-V-V-U-V-U-V-U-V-U-V-U-V

arrow