logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2019.08.21 2019누20372
변상금부과처분 및 원상복구명령처분 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows. The part 8-9 of the first instance judgment's reasoning is as follows. Except for the addition of the plaintiff's argument at the trial and its determination, it is identical to the entry of the first instance judgment's reasoning. Thus, the part '5' of the first instance judgment' as it was used for 11, 14, 16, 17, Eul's evidence and evidence No. 10-13 of the first instance judgment' (including each number of pages 8-10 to 9 of the first instance judgment), 10-2 of the first instance judgment's reasoning, 10-2 of the first instance judgment's reasoning is as follows. Thus, it appears that the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration of the above land was completed by purchasing the above land and the neighboring land of this case which were owned by P, Q, etc. from 8-18 of the first instance judgment to 1988 of the first instance judgment's execution of ownership transfer registration from 98-18 of each of the above land.

(2) On the other hand, P, upon the removal of its own housing due to the expansion and packing work of Gun roads around October 1989, pursuant to the Urban Planning Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1550, Dec. 31, 1990, P, among the land owned by the Plaintiff, was subject to permission for construction of a building area of 84.81 square meters and a building of 84.33 square meters on the ground of a total floor area of 84.33 square meters on the ground of a building area among the land owned by the Plaintiff, and was subject to permission for construction from the Defendant on January 31, 1990 (the Plaintiff’s written consent to the use of the site as the landowner), attached the condition that the construction permission (the “after the construction work after the appraisal of site boundary” shall be the condition that the Plaintiff started the construction work after the appraisal of

arrow