logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2014.12.11 2014누178
행정대집행계고처분취소
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 concerning this case is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of “the additional determination of the second instance” under paragraph (2) below. As such, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Matters to be determined additionally by the second instance;

A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion “Special Measures for Arrangement of Specific Buildings” (amended by Act No. 11930, Jul. 16, 2013; and enforced January 17, 2014), approval for use of the instant building can be granted.

Therefore, the instant disposition aimed at removing and restoring the building of this case, which can be approved for use, is unlawful.

B. The standard time to determine the illegality of the administrative disposition is the time of the disposition and the time of the judgment cannot be the standard.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Nu7133 Decided June 16, 1995, etc.). As seen earlier, the date of the instant disposition is September 14, 2012, and the “Special Measures for the Readjustment of Specific Buildings” was implemented on January 17, 2014. As such, in determining the illegality of the instant disposition, it is not possible to consider whether the instant building can be approved for use under the “Special Measures for the Readjustment of Specific Buildings” that was enforced after the date of the instant disposition, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that approval for use of the instant building can be granted under the said Special Measures Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow