(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.04.10 2019누61207

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.04.10 2019누61207

이행강제금부과처분무효확인

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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance which is to be stated in this judgment is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to

Part 3 of the decision of the first instance court provides that "The reason why the person did not comply is" shall be added to "the part imposed for the violation of the order of remedy for the reinstatement of reinstatement and the part imposed for the violation of the order of remedy for the amount equivalent to wages".

The first instance court's decision No. 11 stated as follows: "On the other hand, the defendant's decision was rendered on June 24, 2015 by Supreme Court Decision 201Du2170 Decided June 24, 201, and the amount of the disposition of this case on the ground of the violation of the order of remedy and the enforcement fine on the ground of the violation of the order of remedy for the amount equivalent to the wages, excluding the part of the order of remedy for the reinstatement from the part of the order of remedy for the reinstatement from the part of the disposition of this case, shall not be deemed to be an essential part, and thus, the enforcement fine for the violation of the order of remedy for the reinstatement from the part of the disposition of this case shall not be null

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling cited by the Defendant is inconsistent with the following: (a) if the “non-performance” stated in the notice of non-performance penalty exceeds the “responsibilities under the Administrative Act to be performed by the employer,” the excess scope is insufficient; and (b) the case is different from the Defendant’s assertion claiming a minor difference in the amount of non-performance penalty; and (c) it is inappropriate to apply the instant case to the instant case. As seen earlier, the instant disposition is inconsistent with each other, such as not distinguishing the amount imposed on the violation of the order of non-performance remedy from the amount imposed

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-대법원 2015. 6. 24. 선고 2011두2170 판결

-서울고등법원 2015.3.20. 선고 2014누58398 판결

-서울행정법원 2020.04.23 2019구합5274

-서울행정법원 2010.11.11. 선고 2010구합3688 판결

-수원지방법원 2010.6.30. 선고 2010구합1140 판결