(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.17 2017누40329

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.17 2017누40329

출국명령처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional parts, thereby citing it pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

At the fifth bottom of the judgment of the first instance, the “number of times” is added to the “number of times” following the 5th bottom of the judgment of the first instance.

6. The following shall be added to the 6.3 pages of the first instance judgment:

On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that drinking is not intentional. However, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 15 (Examination of Suspects), the Plaintiff is deemed to drive a motor vehicle in a state of full-time (0.129% of blood alcohol concentration) to the extent that it is difficult to memory even if he/she was found to sit in the motor vehicle and drive the motor vehicle. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected.

6. The following shall be added to the 8th page of the first instance judgment:

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that, while staying in the Republic of Korea for more than 15 years after the University of 2001 after the University of 2001, if the U.S. is now going to a base of living, it is necessary to lead a living for the aged. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s residence in the Republic of Korea could be known in the statement of evidence No. 15, i.e., that the Plaintiff was unable to memory but stated in the U.S. domicile accurately, and that the certificate of issuance of departure tickets was submitted, it is difficult to accept

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

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.12.12 2017누63773

-서울고등법원 2018.11.13 2018누54516

-서울고등법원 2019.06.26 2018누75148

-서울고등법원 2017.11.07 2017누48484

-서울고등법원 2019.07.03 2018누78321