(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.12.30 2014누55245

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) 서울고등법원 2014.12.30 2014누55245

재개발구역지정 결정 무효확인의 소 등

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, in addition to “an addition or dismissal” under Paragraph (2) and Paragraph (3) of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of the first instance.

2. A part concerning addition or height;

A. The following is added to the 111th 20th 11th 20th 20th 1th 20th 20th 1th 20th 1th 20th 1th 20th 1th 20th 1th 20th 1th 2th 200. In light of the foregoing, Article 4-3 of the Do Government Administration Act does not provide for the right to apply for the cancellation of a rearrangement zone, and Article 4(3) of the Do Government Administration Act also provides that a landowner in a rearrangement zone may make a proposal for the formulation of a rearrangement zone only in certain cases. In addition, it is difficult to deem

The principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making refers to that the administrative body shall not impose any obligation that is not substantially related to such obligation on the other party in carrying out any administrative action (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65500, Feb. 12, 2009) and shall not compel the other party to perform such obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65500, Feb. 12, 2009); 3) add “decision” of the 14th 18th 14th 18th of the judgment of the first instance court to “violation, etc. of the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making”. (b) 1) each “maintenance project” of the 6th 13th 13th and 7th 18th 18th of the judgment of the first instance court is “

2) The “former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments” of the 10th 7-21st of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows.

In addition, according to Article 4 (3) of the Do Government Act, the owner of land, etc. means the owner of land, etc. located in the improvement zone (Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) of the Do Government Act and the plaintiffs are considered to be the improvement zone.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 2. 12. 선고 2005다65500 판결

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2014.12.30 2014누6267

-서울고등법원 2014.12.02 2014누59803

-서울고등법원 2014.11.25 2014누2227

-서울고등법원 2014.12.30 2014누58589

-서울고등법원 2014.12.09 2014누56156