logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.07.12 2018누38415
이주자택지공급신청 거부처분 취소청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

The reasons for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following modifications. Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 4 of the judgment of the first instance court, the "Evidence 6 through 9 of the A" is added to "Evidence 6 through 9 of the A, and Evidence 10-1, 2 of the A" of the 4th judgment.

In the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment Nos. 4, 19, 19, and 21, "at around November 1, 1989, there are the previous buildings presumed to be the house, and even in the aerial photography taken around October 1991, there are buildings similar thereto. However, in the aerial photography taken around May 1995, there are buildings different in the previous house and the location and form, and in the aerial photography taken around June 2008, the buildings presumed to be the house of this case, which are different in the composition, location, and roof form of the previous house and building.

1. In the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. The Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. In the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. The Plaintiff’s claim is with merit. The Plaintiff’s claim is with merit. The Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. The Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. The Plaintiff’s ground for appeal is with merit.

“The law is appropriate.”

This conclusion does not change according to the subjective element, such as whether the Plaintiff intended to refer to real estate speculation or the status of a person subject to relocation measures.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

"Ero-friendly".

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow