허가처분취소
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 February 26, 2010, the Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s application for permission for the charging business, and the non-permission disposition, and the administrative litigation process 1) The Intervenor are located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon and two parcels (hereinafter “ Intervenor’s business site”) located within the development restriction zone against the Defendant.
2) As to the application for permission for a liquefied petroleum gas filling business (hereinafter “instant application”).
(2) On March 5, 2010, the Defendant rendered a first non-permission disposition against the Intervenor on the ground that “A liquefied petroleum gas charging station installed within a development restriction zone can be installed on the main road in accordance with a plan for placement established by the head of Si/Gun/Gu. However, in the Yeonsu-gu Incheon, a plan for placement is not established and publicly announced, and thus permission for charging business against the Intervenor is not possible.” 2) The Intervenor filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the first non-permission disposition against the Incheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap1570 (Seoul District Court Decision 2010Nu303) and filed an appeal against the Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu303 on April 12, 2011, the Defendant did not specifically determine whether a plan for the imposition of liquefied petroleum gas within a development restriction zone is appropriate for the general guidelines for the designation and management of the development restriction zone (hereinafter referred to as “development restriction zone”) and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and did not accept the plan.”
Accordingly, the Defendant appealed against the above quoted judgment by Supreme Court Decision 201Du9768, but was rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on October 13, 201 on the same ground as the above quoted judgment.
3. In accordance with the above final judgment revoking the first nonpermission disposition, the Defendant rendered a second disposition against the Intervenor on November 16, 201, and designated and managed a development restriction zone.