logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.05.25 2015고정2076
국토의계획및이용에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a person who is operating a mutual recognition of “D” in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

No one may install any structure, fence, stairs, parking lot, fireproof group, facility related to business, or other similar facilities in the area set back after the building line within the aesthetic zone, in violation of such provision, the accused installed water to obstruct the floor by using trees, etc. in front of the building line at the place of the above domicile on February 2015.

2. Article 141 Subparag. 4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) provides that “The act prohibited by the said provision is “the act of constructing or installing buildings or other facilities or changing their purposes in violation of restrictions on the use, type, size, etc. of buildings or other facilities within a zone for use under Article 76 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act”.

The prosecutor's assertion of the facts charged in this case was that the defendant newly installed a new obstacle to the above light around 2015, and the defendant changed the category of business in 2015 and only repaired the above obstacle. Thus, the act of establishing it is called the act of installing it.

It can not be seen.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, since the defendant operated Kindoz at the above address around March 2007, the above obstacles were installed in the above address; the defendant, changing his trade name, removed steel pents of the above obstacles (which consist of wooden and steel pents) and replaced a lower height of trees pents.

In light of the fact that the photograph taken by the defendant is also consistent with this, it is reasonable to view that the above obstruction was repaired by the defendant around 2015.

Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that the defendant newly installs the above obstacles only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

arrow