(영문) 광주고등법원(전주) 2014.09.22 2014누514

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) 광주고등법원(전주) 2014.09.22 2014누514

주택건설사업계획승인취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The plaintiff at the first instance court against the defendant in the scope of the trial. The court of first instance rejected the lawsuit as to the conjunctive claim, and dismissed the main claim.

Accordingly, the plaintiff appealed only against the plaintiff's main claim, and only the main claim falls under the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court shall use “3. 18, 2008. 12” of the judgment of the court of first instance as “ March 13, 2008. ; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion made in the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (3) below; and (c) thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the

3. Additional determination as to a new argument

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 34(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that the presiding official of the hearing shall prepare a statement of opinion, and Article 34-2 of the same Act provides that the presiding official of the hearing shall reflect the records of the hearing, the statement of opinion of the presiding official of the hearing, and other related documents when an administrative agency takes a disposition. Article 35-2 of the same Act provides that the results of the hearing shall be reflected in the case where deemed reasonable grounds exist. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not prepare the records of the hearing that are indispensable for the procedures of the hearing, the statement of opinion of the presiding official of the hearing, and the statement of opinion of the presiding official of the hearing. The instant disposition in violation of the principle of proportionality is null and void in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. (2) The instant disposition in violation of the principle of proportionality is the Defendant’s choice of the most serious means of infringement on the cancellation of the housing construction project in this case even if the Defendant was able

참조조문

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2016.01.28 2015누12173

-서울고법 2022. 11. 24. 선고 2021누77724 판결

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2021.02.17 2020누10862

-광주지방법원 2018.11.15 2018구합401

-대전고등법원 2016.04.21 2015누13077