도로점용취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiff is operating a C non-resident hotel in Gwangju Mine-gu (hereinafter referred to as “instant unmanned hotel”) with the purpose of accommodation business, real estate leasing business, etc.
On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant to occupy and use a road of 49.5 square meters in front of the Gwangju Mine-gu (hereinafter “instant permission to occupy and use the road”).
On August 28, 2015, the Defendant issued a prior notice of disposition to revoke the instant permission to occupy and use the road pursuant to Article 96 of the Road Act on the ground that the entrance of the parking lot of the instant unmanned hotel was confirmed as an exhaust facility (on board), and that “the Defendant applied for the instant permission to occupy and use the road using a exhaust facility (on board) without the entrance of the parking lot,” and also notified the Plaintiff of the purport to conduct the hearing procedure on September 14, 2015.
On September 14, 2015, the Defendant: (a) filed an application for permission to occupy and use a road for the purpose of access to a parking lot; (b) carried out the hearing procedure on the ground that the distribution facility without the entrance and exit of the parking lot was remodeled into the parking lot entrance and obtained the instant permission to occupy and use the road; (c) the Plaintiff did not install exhaust facilities on the wall remodeled to the parking lot; and (d) under the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff stated in the above hearing procedure that “In the case of an escape floor, there was no fact of violating Article 96 of the Road Act.”
On September 16, 2015, the Defendant revoked the instant permission to occupy and use the road in accordance with Article 96 Subparag. 2 of the Road Act, on the ground that “the facility without a vehicle entrance was remodeled to the entrance of the parking lot, and the fireproof section before the wall surface of the building was removed without permission and obtained permission for the purpose of access to the parking lot.”
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9.