logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.21 2016누66119
사업비 분담금
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

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, except for the part which is added or dismissed as follows, since it is identical to that of Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

After the second page 16 of the first instance judgment, "the plaintiff has been authorized to amend the above articles of incorporation by the head of Gangnam-gu Office on January 8, 2014" shall be added.

The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is 6 and 7.

① A person subject to the settlement of cash in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (5) of this Article shall settle the charges, such as the cost of the maintenance project, the relocation expenses, the interest, and the interest on the moving expenses incurred at the time of the settlement of cash. (See the amended provisions of November 25, 2013, the person subject to the settlement of cash in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (5) of this Article shall settle the cost of the maintenance project, the relocation expenses, the interest, and the charges incurred until the settlement of cash. (See the amended provisions as above, Nov. 30, 2014).)

Plaintiff’s assertion

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since this part of the judgment is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The reasoning for this Court to be stated in this part of the judgment on the prior defense of Defendant 1 through 24 is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the last day of the judgment of the court of first instance, to the

Article 60 (1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act") concerning the claim for contributions for rearrangement project costs shall be governed by this Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes.

arrow