logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원(청주) 2017.11.01 2017누3084
운영위탁취소 처분무효 확인 등
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

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph (2), and with the same reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment of the plaintiff in the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph (3). Thus, it is consistent with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the appellate court (Cheongju District Court 2016No978) was sentenced to the conviction on the remaining abusive acts except No. 11 and No. 14 in the attached table of conduct (I) in the Cheongju District Court (Cheongju District Court 2016No978) on August 31, 2017, and the final appeal is pending (Supreme Court 2017Do15086).

Part 9 7 and 8 "The present appellate court (Seoul High Court 2016Nu81415) is pending in the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2016Nu81415)." The appellate court (2016Nu815) was sentenced to dismissal on June 1, 2017, and the appeal was lodged, and the present appellate court (2017du51600) is still pending in the final appellate court (Supreme Court)."

The "attached Form 7 and 8 of the 11th page" shall be read as "attached Form 11 (excluding No. 11 and No. 14)".

On May 14, 2013, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's additional determination on the plaintiff's argument was made, but he already rendered warning to the plaintiff in relation to the "child abuse case of Byoung Infant Care Center", but the same case was subject to double sanction. The disposition of this case constitutes double sanction and thus is unlawful.

B. In full view of the following facts, the Defendant’s warning on May 14, 2013 was based on a decision made by the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, pursuant to Article 45 of the National Human Rights Commission Act, to enforce liability against the Defendant for the persons related to the violation of B/L human rights, and the other party is not the Plaintiff, but the head of the agency to which he/she belongs.

arrow