logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.07.24 2014나2052498
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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 citing the reasoning of this case citing this case is as follows, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for any modification, deletion, or addition as follows.

The term "C, D, E" in the 11th 11th 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

The term "contract" in the 18th sentence of the first instance judgment shall be amended to "the same business contract".

The 7th decision of the first instance court is that "a person who has obtained permission shall be subject to criminal punishment, but the permission may be revoked if the permission has been granted, and that person may be subject to criminal punishment."

The part from "in a development-restricted zone" to "However," in the 7th 8th g of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted.

Article 31(2)3 of the Act is amended as follows: “The fact that Article 31(2)3 of the Act is only a person who has filed an application for permission by borrowing the name of permission, and it appears not to be a content of punishing residents in a development restriction zone who leased the name of permission.”

On May 23, 2012, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance 8 to 6-9 of the "No. 18-9 of the judgment of the court of first instance on the premise that it is possible for a resident to file an application for permission to install a liquefied petroleum gas charging station on the land owned by others according to the criteria for the selection of the head of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, which was applied at the time of filing an application for permission to install a liquefied petroleum gas charging station in the name of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "No. 18-2") by the plaintiff to conclude that the provision granting only the original resident the right to apply for permission to install a liquefied petroleum gas filling station in a development-restricted zone is a mandatory provision. It is difficult to see that the contract of

"At the time of designation of a development-restricted zone, residents and land are owned.

arrow