건축신고서 반려처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 22, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased 198 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground detached housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) from Gangnam-si, Gangnam-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.
B. The Plaintiff intended to remove the instant housing and construct a new building, but the instant land was a blind spot without passing through. As such, the Plaintiff requested F, the owner of the land adjacent to the instant land, which is the owner of Gangseo-si E-si, the neighboring land, to sell the land for the purpose of constructing a new building or to obtain approval for the use of the portion as to the passage route. However, F rejected this.
C. On November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against F to confirm the right of passage over surrounding land with respect to the street of three meters within the 3m width of 310m square meters in Gangnam-si E-si for the passage of the instant land (hereinafter “instant passage”), with the Gangnam-si District Court’s Gangnam-gu branch office 2016da3580, and won the judgment in favor of F, and the said judgment became final and conclusive by dismissing F’s appeal.
On April 3, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a construction report on the construction of a building on the instant land. However, on April 17, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff to return the application for a construction report on the ground that the road was not secured under the Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion has the right of passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act on the part of the passage road of this case by a final judgment. Since the land of this case is adjacent to the passage road of this case, it shall be deemed to meet the requirements of Article 44 of the Building Act.
Therefore, the disposition of this case that rejected the Plaintiff’s application for the building report by deeming that the land of this case is not adjacent to the road is unlawful.
(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.