Seoul High Court Decision 201Na11466 delivered on August 1, 201

The head of the Si/Gun (Attorney Kang-soo, Counsel for defendant)

March 31, 2014

Jeonju District Court Decision 2013Guhap663 Decided January 15, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On November 28, 2012, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-permission for complex civil petitions filed against the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of the following contents among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (it is difficult to view that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, as long as the disposition of this case is deemed unlawful on other grounds, even if there was no explicit decision as to whether the instant application site exists within 200 meters in a straight line from the residential smuggling area in the judgment of the court of

(1) Each entry of Category 1, 5, and 6 of Category 17 of Chapter 10 shall be considered as “each entry of Category 1, 5, and 6 of Category A”.

(2) From the 15th parallel parallels to the 19th parallel parallels are as follows:

On July 26, 2012, before August 14, 2012, which was before the date of the closure of the fact-finding proceeding on the previous disposition, Nonparty 2 may recognize the fact that the above right to claim partial transfer of ownership was completed on the basis of the registration of the right to claim partial transfer of ownership. Meanwhile, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 appealed against the above judgment and filed an appeal. On December 14, 2012 in the Jeonju District Court Decision 201Na1545, the judgment dismissing Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s appeal was handed down on December 14, 2012, and the appeal was filed again. However, the Supreme Court rendered a new appeal on April 25, 2013 in the case No. 2013Da7592, which became final and conclusive at that time.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is dismissed as the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Clinical (Presiding Judge)