logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 (청주) 2017.02.15 2016누10337
기타부담금부과처분취소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The person who caused the wastewater treatment facilities that the Defendant had against the Plaintiff on October 8, 2014.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the partial contents of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2 and 10 of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (hereinafter “Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act”) are “former Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 13879, Jan. 27, 2016; hereinafter “Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Act”)”.

Part II, "Enforcement Decree of the same Act" shall be "Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27113, Apr. 28, 2016)".

Part 2, part 10 and 11 of the Ordinance on the Operation of and Costs-Bearing of Wastewater in Cheongju-si (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case") shall be amended by the former Ordinance on the Operation of and Costs-Bearing of Wastewater in Cheongju-si (amended by Ordinance No. 425, Oct. 8, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case").

The Plaintiff’s argument as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition is justifiable, and the instant disposition is unlawful in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the Plaintiff’s statement on this part “in accordance with Chapter 3 subparag. 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance” is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

The court's explanation on this part of the substantial illegality is the reason for this Court.

arrow