(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.06.27 2018누63312

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 2019.06.27 2018누63312

도선사업면허변경처분 취소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim added by this court is dismissed.

3. This.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part is as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 5 to 9 pages) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2 to 3 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

The 2nd written judgment of the first instance court shall consist of the following parts from one to three pages:

“B” on April 6, 2017, from February 1, 2017 to April 1, 2017, the term “I’s age is N (713 tons, 500 passengers, 4 seafarers; hereinafter referred to as “instant vessel”).

2) On April 12, 2017, the Defendant: (a) filed an application for change of the license to engage in the ferry business; and (b) on April 12, 2017, the Defendant determined the date of commencement of operation of the instant vessel on April 12, 2017 and approved the change of the license (hereinafter “disposition for change of license to engage in the first ferry business”).

) The following is added between the three parallels in the first instance judgment and four parallels. Then, the Defendant approved the change of the license to engage in the ferry business with the content that the number of the instant vessels was reduced from 504 passengers (passenger 495, crew 8/1) to 393 passengers (passenger 384, crew 8, temporary passengers 1) on September 3, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “the license change disposition for the 2nd ferry business”). The 3rd nine parallel parts of the judgment of the first instance court of “(hereinafter referred to as “the 2nd ferry business”). Each entry in Gap’s No. 1, 4, Eul’s No. 4, 5, and 14 (including each serial number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings as follows:

2. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

3. Determination as to the claim for revocation of the license change for the primary ferry business

A. Determination on the Defendant’s main defense of safety 1) The Defendant’s standing to sue B has already obtained the Plaintiff’s license to engage in the ferry business before obtaining the Plaintiff’s license to engage in passenger transportation business, and thus has a legitimate right to freely change the said license to engage in the ferry business.

The plaintiff is the first ferry business.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019. 6. 27. 선고 2018누63312 판결

-인천지방법원 2018. 8. 16. 선고 2017구합55194 판결

-대법원 2017. 11. 23. 선고 2017두46271 판결

-대법원 2017.11.23 2017두46271

-의정부지방법원 2020.01.16 2019나205672