logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.06.13 2019누31565
부담금감면불인정처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following portions written by the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation as to this case is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As follows, a part of the judgment of the court of first instance written shall be 2 to 11th parallels below the 9th parallels:

According to the theory of the lawsuit, Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Notice of this case cannot be deemed to have deviates from the limit delegated by Article 33 (11) of the Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act (hereinafter “Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act”), and therefore, it shall be effective in combination with the provisions of the Employment Promotion and Employment of Disabled Persons

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

3) Whether the instant contract satisfies the requirements for reduction of and exemption from charges under the instant public notice, in principle, is a universal norm of society with the same binding force against many and unspecified persons, and thus, it should be interpreted to have objective feasibility by clarifying the standard meaning of the law, and the legal stability should not be undermined by maintaining consistency acceptable to all the people as much as possible.

On the other hand, since positive law is stipulated in consideration of universal and typical matters, it is also required to interpret and apply so that it can be the most reasonable solution to specific cases in various cases that occur in society reality.

In short, the purpose of legal interpretation should be to find concrete feasibility to the extent that it does not undermine legal stability.

Furthermore, in principle, the interpretation of the language and text used in the law as much as possible should be faithful to the ordinary meaning of the language and text used in the law, and considering the legislative intent and purpose, history of the enactment and amendment, harmony with the entire legal order, and relationship with other laws and regulations.

arrow