logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1964. 3. 31. 선고 63누158 판결
[행정처분취소][집12(1)행,001]
Main Issues

(a) Eligibility as a party to a lawsuit seeking revocation of permission for river occupation by a person who has obtained permission for new construction of structures adjacent to a river under the joint name as a requisite co-litigants;

B. The meaning of Article 3(1) of the Sub-Appellant Act, "the date on which the so-called "the administrative action is known"

Summary of Judgment

A. In a case where permission for construction of a structure adjacent to a river is obtained under the joint name, a lawsuit seeking revocation of permission for occupation and use of the river is a requisite co-litigation.

B. The purport of knowing the existence of an administrative disposition as referred to in Article 3(1) of the Sub-Appellant Act is not sufficient to say that the specific content of the administrative disposition was known, but that there was a certain type of administrative disposition.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 3(1) of the Sub-Appeal Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Maximum red-type et al. and 13 others

Defendant-Appellee

Do Governor of Chungcheongnam-Nam

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 62Gu273 delivered on August 29, 1963

Text

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

According to Gap evidence No. 1 (No. 6 of March 1958, the Ministry of Home Affairs's permit for construction of a river adjacent structure) which recognizes the establishment of the public part of the defendant's appeal by the defendant, which is determined by the defendant, only to knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife Kim knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn's attorney, the Minister of Home Affairs recognized the establishment of the public part of the lawsuit.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff Choi Hong-style attorney are as stated in the separate award and the reasons.

It is sufficient to view that there was an administrative disposition as stated in Article 3 (1) of the 19-2 of the 201-201-201-201-201-2010-20-200-20-10-20-20-10-20-20-20-10-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-10-20-20-20-20-20-20-10-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-30-20-30-20-20-30-30-20-30-30-30-2.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman

arrow
심급 사건
-서울고등법원 1963.8.29.선고 62구273
본문참조조문