logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.03.24 2016구단7259
기타이행강제금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's action shall be dismissed as a foundation A;

2. The plaintiff B's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. According to the judgment as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit (the part A), Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 2, the defendant notified the plaintiffs of the corrective order as of December 23, 2015 and the scheduled imposition of the non-performance penalty as of February 15, 2016. However, it can be acknowledged that the disposition imposing the non-performance penalty as of March 23, 2016 only imposed the plaintiff B, and did not impose the non-performance penalty as above against the plaintiff foundation A as of March 23, 2016. In addition, in light of the above facts, the defendant asserted that the non-existence of the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiff foundation A was not imposed against the plaintiff foundation A, and thus, it is unlawful.

In administrative litigation, the existence of administrative disposition, which is the object of litigation, is an ex officio investigation as a litigation requirement, and it cannot be a subject of confession. Therefore, even if the parties do not dispute the existence of it, it should be clarified ex officio if there is doubt as to the existence of it.

(2) On July 2, 200, the lower court determined the legitimacy of the instant disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15499, Jul. 27, 1993). (1) as indicated in the attached Form No. 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act”), found that Plaintiff B violated Article 12(1) of the Act by installing a person in charge within a development restriction zone without obtaining permission; and (2) based on Articles 30 and 30-2 of the Act on the ground that the Defendant violated Article 12(1) of the Act against Plaintiff B, the Defendant imposed the instant disposition imposing the enforcement fine (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Judgment of the court below]

arrow