logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.15 2018구합65935
이주자택지 공급대상자 부적격 처분취소
Text

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 27, 2016, the Defendant, as the implementer of the C public housing project implemented in Seongbuk-si, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant project”), sent the Plaintiff a “C public housing zone relocation and living instruction, etc.” as follows:

B. On November 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to select himself as a person subject to the relocation measures for the instant project, but the Defendant, on February 6, 2017, notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff constitutes a person ineligible for relocation measures (hereinafter “the first notification”), and the said notification reached the Plaintiff on February 8, 2017.

C. On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the first notification to the Defendant, but the Defendant, on April 28, 2017, confirmed that the Plaintiff’s vinyl located in Sungnam-si D did not exist in the airline margin around May 1987, and that there was no objective evidence that the Plaintiff existed as a residential building from January 24, 1989, which was the date prior to the date, due to lack of objective evidence that there was a residential building (hereinafter “the second notification”). D.

Accordingly, on July 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the second notification of the instant case. However, on March 20, 2018, the appeal was dismissed, and the instant lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 1-9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The plaintiff's assertion and the plaintiff's assertion of the defendant's principal safety defense 1 were erroneous in informing the plaintiff that they can file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation within 90 days against each of the instant notifications, and the plaintiff trust the defendant's explicit words and actions.

arrow