logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.23 2017누66116
감리자지정처분 취소
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

The reasons why the court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, stated in this case, are the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following contents under the 8th 13th st st st son of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act,

(C) The plaintiff asserts that "A shall not be assigned concurrently with a supervisor of another construction project pursuant to Article 13 of the former standards for designation of supervisor, and if there is a person participating in another construction project, the latter side of the "application for designation of supervisor of housing construction project (attached Form 1)" which is submitted to be designated as a supervisor shall be attached to the scheduled process schedule, placement plan, etc. issued by the person who has the authority to permit the relevant construction project after the date of public announcement. However, although the certificate of career C indicates that a military market is placed at the site of military supervision, it is unlawful to select A as a preliminary business entity of the instant supervision service without submitting a scheduled process schedule, placement plan, etc. issued by

However, as the evidence No. 5, which was written by the Plaintiff and submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in filing an objection under Article 12 of the former Standards for the Designation of Consulting Engineers, stated “C is completed on April 24, 2016,” it is not correct for the Plaintiff’s above assertion based on the premise that C participates in military production supervision services at the time of the publication of the instant supervision services.

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

arrow