logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.03.06 2018누61057
고속형 시외버스운송사업 사업계획변경 인가처분 취소 등 청구의 소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall include the part resulting from the participation in the appeal.

Reasons

1. The grounds for admitting and amending the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] The 9th sentence of the first instance judgment, the 11th to 20th sentence of the first instance judgment, shall be followed as follows.

In full view of Articles 18(1) and 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 27(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act, when a person selects the method of immediately filing a suit for revocation with respect to a disposition, he/she shall file a suit for revocation within 90 days from the date when he/she becomes aware of such disposition. When he/she selects the method of filing a suit for revocation, he/she shall file a suit for revocation within 90 days from the date when he/she becomes aware of such disposition and receive a written adjudication on an administrative appeal within 90 days from the date when he/she becomes aware of such disposition. Therefore, where a suit for revocation is not filed without filing a suit for revocation within 90 days from the date when he/she becomes aware of such disposition, the subsequent suit for revocation shall be deemed to be unlawful after the lapse of the period for filing a suit for revocation and the date when he/she becomes aware of such disposition shall not be deemed to have re-compliance with the period for filing a suit for revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1786.

arrow