logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2011.05.17 2010누24687
재산세등부과처분취소
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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: ① deleted the part of “Article 194-15(1)2 or each subparagraph of Article 194-15(4)2 or each subparagraph of Article 194-16 of the judgment of the court of first instance”; ② adds the contents indicated in paragraph (2) below to “the fact that is not a provision” of Article 194-15(1)2 or 15-16 of the judgment of the court of first instance; ③ adds the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes attached to the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding “the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes added” to the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article

2. Article 16(2), (4), (7), and (9) of the Housing Act does not impose any limitation on public law required at the approval stage of a project plan, such as where a project plan should be included in incidental facilities and welfare facilities (Article 16(2), (4), (7), and (9) of the Housing Act), even if excluded from the subject of approval of a project plan under the Housing Act, such as the No. 201, even if it is excluded from the subject of approval of a project plan under the Housing Act, the project plan should be established to be suitable for carrying on a pleasant and cultural residential life due to the exclusion from the subject of approval of a project plan (Article 16(2), (4), and (7), and

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

arrow