beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.05.01 2018구합5257

지목변경반려처분취소 또는 무효확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 11, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to B warehouse site B (the land category at the time was “former”; hereinafter “instant land”). On September 17, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained a construction permit on September 21, 2009 to construct the first floor above the instant land and the light-scale steel-frame structure warehouse facilities of 266 square meters above the building area (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) on the instant land, and obtained approval for the use of the instant warehouse on October 17, 2012.

B. On December 29, 2015, the land category of the instant land was changed from “B” to “ware site.”

C. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to change the land category of the instant land from “ware site to “miscellaneous land” to “miscellaneous land.”

On May 4, 2017, pursuant to Article 58 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Construction, Management, etc. of Spatial Data, the Defendant rendered a disposition to reject the Plaintiff’s application (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) to the effect that “the instant land is completed as warehouse facilities on the building register, and the site for the storage facilities independently installed to store or store goods, etc., and the site for the attached facilities connected thereto.” The Defendant rendered a disposition to return the Plaintiff’s application to the effect that “The instant land shall be subject to a change of land classification into a warehouse site, as it is known that it is appropriate to convert the Plaintiff’s application into a warehouse site.”

On August 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on the instant disposition, but the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-7 evidence, and Eul 1-5 evidence, respectively.