logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.12.23 2016누5380
이주자택지공급자제외처분 취소청구
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 for the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows. The plaintiff’s new argument in the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as stipulated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

The 3rd and 5th of the judgment of the first instance court "Evidence B 1 through 8, 14, 22, 23, 24, 26" are "Evidence B 1 through 8, 14, 22 through 24, 26, and 26."

At the third bottom of the judgment of the first instance court, the 7th " September 27, 2008" of the 7th sentence shall be read as " September 17, 2008".

Of the first one, the first one appears to be “ around November 16, 2009.” From the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance, the first one appears to be “as of November 16, 2009.” From the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance, the term “as of June 1, 2009” refers to “as of June 1, 2009.” The third half-year transfer date of the Table in the fifth top part of the judgment of the first instance is deemed to be “as of January 1, 2012”; the third through 3-year transfer date of the list in the fifth part of the judgment of the first instance; the third through 5-year Office of the first instance; the second through 3-year testimony of the first instance judgment; the second through 5-year Office of the first instance was to be excluded from the above judgment of the first instance; the second to 20-year Office of the first instance; and the third to 3-year withdrawal of the appeal as of August 26, 2015.

Part 14 through 17 of the decision of the first instance is as follows.

Of course, in light of the amount of electricity and water supply of the instant building, the Plaintiff.

arrow