공사중지명령 취소청구
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part which is determined additionally as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(The findings of fact and judgments of the first instance court shall not be different, considering the allegations and evidence added in the trial. 2. Additional decision
A. The key point of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the plaintiffs obtained the building permit of this case from the defendant, and the defendant trusted the defendant's public opinion and carried out construction. Thus, the rejection disposition against the suspension order of this case and its cancellation disposition is unlawful against the principle of trust protection.
B. In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the act of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the object of trust to an individual; second, the administrative agency's statement of opinion is justified and there is no cause attributable to the individual; third, the administrative agency should have conducted any act corresponding thereto; fourth, the administrative agency's disposition contrary to its statement of opinion should cause the result of infringing the individual's interest in trust; last, when taking an administrative disposition in accordance with the above statement of opinion, it should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interest of a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du8684, Sept. 28, 2001). The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs cannot be deemed unlawful against the principle of the protection of trust; rather, it is acknowledged that the disposition of this case was not made due to the reasons attributable to the plaintiffs or the building committee entrusted by the plaintiffs.
Therefore, it is true.