logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.07.24 2013도1547
도시및주거환경정비법위반
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 81(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”) does not clearly stipulate the timing for disclosure of documents and relevant data under each subparagraph of the same paragraph. However, Article 81(2) of the former Act provides that “in the case of documents and relevant data subject to disclosure under paragraph (1), the list of the subject of disclosure, outlines, place of disclosure, methods of perusal and reproduction, etc. shall be notified in writing to the association members or the owners of land, etc. by the method and procedure prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 70(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “The list of the subject of disclosure, outlines of disclosure, and place of disclosure shall be notified in writing to the union members or the owners of land, etc. by the 15th of the following month after the end of each quarter.” Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the said documents and relevant data should be disclosed prior to the 15th of the following month.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the Defendants violated Article 81(1) of the former Act by failing to disclose the documents stated in the instant facts charged by October 15, 201, the 15th day of the month following the end of the quarter.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles as to criminal intent or criminal intent.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

arrow