logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2018.04.30 2017누1815
낚시터업 등록신청불가처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases where the part stipulated in paragraph (2) below is dismissed, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On May 20, 2016, the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, “Around May 20, 2016,” written by the first instance court, “Around May 20, 2016.”

B. On the third and third sides of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term “20 years” in the 9th sentence shall be applied to “30 years”.

C. On the 5th of the first instance judgment, the 2nd of the 5th to 7th of the 20th of the 7th of the 5th of the 5th of

【The fact that the registration of a fishing place business cannot be made unless the separate requirements prescribed by the Farmland Act are met. The defendant's ground for the disposition of this case that the land of this case is unlawfully converted into the land of this case under Article 16 of the Fishing Management Act and the water of this case was created. Thus, the land of this case should be restored to its original state, and the land of this case shall not be converted without the permission of farmland conversion under the Farmland Act, and land use which is not directly related to agricultural production or farmland improvement shall not be prohibited, and the plaintiff shall also be viewed to have made the same assertion as the farmland of this case under the premise that the farmland of this case is applied to this case.

C. (3) Determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Whether certain land of the relevant legal doctrine constitutes farmland under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Farmland Act ought to be based on the actual phenomenon of the pertinent land regardless of the land category in the public record book.

Therefore, even if the land is transferred to the public register, if the land is lost its phenomenon as farmland and its loss is not temporary, the land is greater.

arrow