(영문) 수원고등법원 2020.10.21 2019누13448

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) 수원고등법원 2020.10.21 2019누13448

이주대책대상자제외처분취소

Text

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

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

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the second bottom, the defendant's "the defendant" is referred to as "the defendant shall be subject to the ruling of expropriation by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on July 31, 2017."

The ruling of expropriation on September 14, 201 shall be construed as “Expropriation on September 14, 2017,” from 2 to 1 line under one.

In full view of the purport of the argument as a result of the order of submission of tax information to the 8th to 11th line, Plaintiff B did not report operating income as a business operator in the year 2013, 2014, and 2015, and did not constitute a person entitled to business compensation due to the instant project. According to the purport of the written evidence No. 4-1 to 3, the result of the order of submission of tax information to the chief of the branch office of this court, and the whole pleadings, Plaintiff B appears to have registered the instant building as its place of business from around 2007 to 2014, and operated the business. However, the above Plaintiff did not provide evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff continued to conduct business or received business compensation by entering into a compensation agreement after consultation on compensation.”

2. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in entirety.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-수원고등법원 2020.06.17 2019누13509

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.01 2018나21851

-광주고등법원(전주) 2020.02.06 2018나11843

-수원고등법원 2020.12.02 2020누11813