logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원(춘천) 2020.11.16 2020누768
개발행위불허가처분취소
Text

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is justifiable in finding facts in the court of first instance and determining whether the evidence submitted in addition to this court is presented

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 9th 15th 15th son of the judgment of the first instance shall be put into the environment.

"Taking into account the situation at the time of the disposition" in 10th 10th 10 of the judgment of the first instance shall be construed as " taking into account the situation at the time of the disposition and what is the main points and side effects of solar power, and the changes in the value judgment."

The following shall be added to the 10th 18 line below the judgment of the first instance:

11) In light of the fact that the Defendant determined that the landscaping plan, such as the Plaintiffs’ disaster prevention measures and shielding forest planting plan, is insufficient, it does not necessarily require the Plaintiffs to obtain permission for development activities, to supplement the landscaping plan, or to reduce the requested area by excluding some project zones with high possibility of view from the outside. It is reasonable to deem that the instant disposition, which refused permission for development activities, can be conducted.

A person shall be appointed.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow