logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.06.26 2018누75148
보상금등지급신청기각결정취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts to be filled or added below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 5th three parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance and 6th eight parallels in the court of first instance shall be incorporated into "this court", respectively.

제1심판결서 5쪽 8행 “수행하였다.” 다음에 “ 뗌마는 4~5명이 탈 수 있는 소형의 노 젓는 배이다. 동력을 이용하는 배는 소음 때문에 공작원 침투 시에 이용되지 아니하였다.”를 추가한다.

The following shall be added to 6.7 pages 7 of the judgment of the first instance.

[Defendant asserts to the effect that at the time of the Plaintiff’s initial application for compensation, the deceased consistently participated in the M&C operation from the time of the submission of a written complaint to August 10, 2018, and that the deceased’s performance of a special mission was not asserted at all, and that the deceased’s performance of a duty of escort was asserted and stated in the first instance court as a witness, and that the Plaintiff’s lack of consistency was caused by the Plaintiff’s statements rather than that of memory. However, the Plaintiff’s application for the payment of compensation, etc. submitted to the Defendant on November 10, 2014 (Evidence B No. 1) that the deceased’s “in charge of leading, leading, going through the entry and departure of the public ship line, was carried out with the public ship’s operation and transfer of the counter-confiter with the public ship operation and delivery of the counter-confiter from the original land,” and that the Plaintiff’s assertion is not consistent with the above judgment of the first instance court.

The defendant made the statement of the witness F with the false letter of good faith to many people.

arrow