logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.03.29 2017구합73815
재결취소청구의소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the ruling of this case

A. On October 7, 2005, the Seoul Industrial Promotion Agency, a foundation, (hereinafter “Seoul Industrial Promotion Agency”) filed a report on the construction of the building with the Plaintiff on the second floor above 3104 ground and the second floor area above 11,019 square meters of temporary buildings (hereinafter “instant temporary building”). On October 19, 2005, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of completion of the report on the construction on the temporary building on the temporary building on the temporary building on the temporary building on several occasions by receiving a report on the extension of the retention period of the temporary building from the Seoul Industrial Promotion Agency.

B. On September 7, 2016, the Seoul Industrial Promotion Agency reported to the Plaintiff on the extension of the retention period on the ground that the retention period of the instant temporary building expires on September 30, 2016. On September 27, 2016, the Plaintiff rendered a warning to the Seoul Industrial Promotion Agency on September 27, 2016, to the effect that “if the instant temporary building is not voluntarily removed by October 20, 2016, vicarious execution will be carried out in accordance with the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act” (hereinafter “instant order”).

C. On October 7, 2016, the Seoul Industrial Promotion Agency filed an administrative appeal against the instant order against the Defendant. Accordingly, on May 29, 2017, the Defendant rendered a ruling of acceptance that “the instant order is revoked” for the following reasons.

AB made it.

① In light of the circumstances, etc. that the Plaintiff sent to the Seoul Industrial Promotion Agency on June 20, 2011, the owner of the instant temporary building may be deemed the Seoul Industrial Promotion Agency, and even if the Seoul Industrial Promotion Agency is not the owner, the Plaintiff, etc. may be deemed the owner of the instant temporary building.

arrow