지구지정제안 불수용처분 취소
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. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 12, 2017, the Plaintiff suggested the Defendant to designate the instant application as “C-type rental housing supply promotion district” pursuant to Article 23(3) of the Special Act on Private Rental Housing (amended by Act No. 15356, Jan. 16, 2018; hereinafter “Private Rental Housing Act”) in order to construct and supply commercial rental housing (1,90 households) on the Daegu Suwon-gu and 91 Parcel (hereinafter “the instant application site”) located within the development restriction district, Daegu-gu, and 107,543 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant application site”).
(hereinafter “instant proposal”). (b)
On December 20, 2017, the Defendant submitted the following documents (hereinafter “instant documents”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is necessary to review an urban management plan in accordance with the proposal to designate a commercial rental housing supply promotion district for the instant site located in a development restriction zone, and notified the Plaintiff of the request.
1) Documents and drawings to be attached at the time of filing an application for determination of an urban management plan; 2) Guidelines for formulating an amendment to an urban management plan for coordinating development restriction zones (amended by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Directive No. 1060, Aug. 10, 2018; hereinafter “Guidelines for modifying urban management planning”).
3) Documents which show that the criteria for selection of the area subject to release pursuant to Section 2 of Chapter 3 do not meet the criteria for exclusion of the area subject to release pursuant to Section 2 of Chapter 3; 4) documents which show that the change of the urban management plan does not meet the criteria for exclusion of the area subject to release pursuant to Section 2 of Chapter 3; and 5) documents which show that the change of the urban management plan does not conflict with the provisions of Section 2-3 (Prohibition of Speculation
C. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not submit the pertinent documents, and on February 7, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant proposal was not acceptable for the following reasons.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff’s proposal shall be made.