개발행위불허가처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for admitting and amending the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. In addition to adding the judgment as to the contents asserted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance to the corresponding part, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act,
[Supplementary part] Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, 10 pages 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance " shall be permitted before April 2018" shall be written as follows.
It was permitted before April 2018 (the Suwon City Urban Planning Committee, which was held on April 18, 2018, presented an opinion that "the formulation of the comprehensive plan for the entire cancellation area of the excellent farmland in Suwon-si shall be prior to the establishment of the comprehensive plan for the entire cancellation area of the excellent farmland in Suwon-si, and the permission to engage in the development of the members of the relevant area shall be processed with deliberation by
(ii) the Act;
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Plaintiff asserted only based on the internal recommendation that there is a need to establish a comprehensive urban planning as a result of deliberation by the urban planning committee in Suwon City, the Defendant filed an application for permission to engage in development activities on a total of 39 neighboring land including the instant application from April 2018 to September 2018. After the instant disposition, only after the instant disposition, designated the KRW 63 of the instant land as a restricted area for development activities pursuant to Article 63 of the National Land Planning Act.
In other words, in order to avoid the prior procedure stipulated in Article 63 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition by applying Articles 56 and 58 of the same Act more easily, and thereby, thereby violating Article 63 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which is a mandatory provision prepared to promote the balance of public and private interests, by prescribing the objective procedures for restricting urban planning.
B. In addition to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 13, 3, and 4, the defendant is the defendant of this case.