logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원(전주) 2020.08.12 2019누2287
개발행위불허가처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the argument that the plaintiff adds to this court is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in the following Paragraph 2, thereby citing it as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Determination on the additional argument

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion of procedural defect 1) The Defendant did not present the legal basis for the instant disposition. As such, Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that the instant disposition is unlawful due to procedural defect in violation of Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act. In rendering a disposition by an administrative agency, the purport is to ensure that the relevant party presents the basis and reason. This is to exclude arbitrary decision of the administrative agency and allow the relevant party to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. Therefore, in full view of the contents indicated in the written disposition and relevant statutes, and the overall process up to the relevant disposition, where it is sufficiently known that the relevant party’s disposition was made at the time of the disposition, and it is deemed that there was no particular obstacle to moving into an administrative remedy procedure, even if the grounds and reason for the disposition are not specified in the written disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20348, Dec. 10, 2009).

arrow