logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.08.14 2019구단61796
4.19혁명 유공자포상 거부처분취소
Text

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Case history

A. On April 19, 1960, the Plaintiff participated in the April 19, 1960 Revolution when he was enrolled in the first grade of B University, and argued that he suffered a total prize in the left-hand side of the Seoul Office before the Seoul Office, and applied for the Defendant to reward the Plaintiff as a person of merit of the April 19 Revolution (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. However, on April 8, 2019, the Defendant rendered a guidance on the result of an official examination that the Plaintiff does not include the Plaintiff in the subject of merit rewards of the April 19 Revolution (hereinafter “instant guidance”) on the ground that “the lack of objective supporting documents regarding demonstration plans or leading facts” was “the lack of objective supporting documents regarding demonstration plans or leading facts.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 8 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. 1) Determination on the main claim of the Defendant’s main claim refers to an act under public law, which directly changes in the specific rights and duties of citizens, such as ordering the establishment of rights or obligations under relevant laws or giving legal effect to a specific matter, and barring any special circumstance, an act that does not directly cause any direct legal change in the legal status of the other party or other relevant persons, such as actions, good offices, recommendations, and actual notification, inside the administrative authority, etc., in order to recommend a person to be awarded a meritorious prize of the April 19 Revolution to the Plaintiff is only a series of procedures to make a decision on whether to grant a meritorious award to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the guidance of this case is merely a simple notification of facts that guide the result of a public examination.

arrow