(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.11.25 2014누2227 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.11.25 2014누2227

보상금증액

Text

1. Judgment in the first instance;

A. An order to pay the Plaintiff L in excess of the following payment order:

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, in addition to “an addition or dismissal” under Paragraph (2) and Paragraph (3) of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of the first instance.

2. A part concerning addition or height;

A. 1) The height part 1) the 9th 1-9 line of the judgment of the court of first instance referred to “not only was determined but also determined.” 2) the 12th 11 line of the judgment of the court of first instance referred to as “free permission, etc.” in the 12th 11th 12th 11.

3) The phrase “U” of the 18th 14th 17th 18th 17th son of the first instance judgment shall be deleted. 4) The phrase “U” of the 19th 16th 17th son of the first instance judgment shall be deleted.

5) Of the 21-22 pages 12 of the judgment of the first instance court, “10,797,400 (1,455,009,342,400)” is “1,455,00 (1,45,000)” and “1,455,000 (1,45,000)” are “9,342,400” in the table of 21-22 of the judgment of the first instance court of the second instance, and “part personal seal” in the column of 21 of the table of 21-22 of the judgment of the first instance court of the second instance is “0” and “part personal seal” in the non-public column is “each”.

B. The following is added to the 16th line of the judgment of the first instance court. However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 7 and No. 8-1 of the evidence Nos. 8-1 of the judgment, the Central Land Tribunal rendered an application for adjudication by the Plaintiff L on Nov. 21, 2013, which was accepted as compensation for the above business as 10,104,830, and it can be recognized that the deposit was made under 4350 of the 16th line of the judgment of the first instance court. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff L’s assertion is without merit.

2) The following shall be added to the 18th sentence of the first instance court:

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 6 and Nos. 8-2, the Central Land Tribunal rendered an application for adjudication by Plaintiff U.S. on July 18, 2013.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2014.12.30 2014누6267

-서울고등법원 2014.12.02 2014누59803

-서울고등법원 2014.12.09 2014누56156

-대전지방법원 2015.12.24 2015나103799

-서울고등법원 2014.12.30 2014누55245