logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2016.10.19 2016누10100
여객자동차터미널사업면허취소처분취소
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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On October 27, 2014, the first instance court’s fourth page “B,” added “The Defendant urged the Plaintiff to comply with the improvement order again on October 27, 2014 to meet the licensing standards.”

"10 to 16," of Part 4 of the decision of the first instance shall be added to "18," next to "11."

On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, "A, 6" shall be added to "A, 3" following the third judgment of the second instance.

The third part of the 7th decision of the first instance court is "the defendant" as "the plaintiff."

From the 7th judgment of the first instance court to the 8th 8th 4th .

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the testimony of the witness I of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement on the instant store with I, a sectional owner of the instant aggregate building, on November 28, 2014 (the duration between November 28, 2014 and November 28, 2017) after having received an order from the Defendant to secure the right to use the ticket, waiting rooms, and parking lots, etc. after having received a correction order from the Defendant to secure the right to use the ticket. However, considering the following circumstances revealed in light of the facts as seen earlier, the evidence mentioned above, the evidence mentioned above, and evidence No. 34 and No. 35, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the right to use the site may not be separately determined by the rules or notarial deeds, and thus, it shall be deemed that the right to use the site extends to the exclusive ownership and the right to use the site as a whole unless the right to use the site can be separately determined by the rules or notarial deeds.

arrow