개발행위불허가처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff’s husband B newly constructed on the ground of Pyeongtaek-si Co., Ltd. 2,332 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); on December 18, 2009, one stable with a light-weight structure (area of 819 square meters); and on May 26, 2010, one manager of light-weight steel structure (area of 54 square meters; hereinafter “previous manager”).
B. B died on July 29, 2013, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 31, 2013 with respect to the instant land, livestock pens, and previous manager due to inheritance by a division held on July 29, 2013.
C. On December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities (such as changing land form and quality) with the purport that “to create 520 square meters of the instant land as a farming housing site.”
As a result of the on-site verification of the instant land, the Defendant confirmed that part of the instant land, which is farmland, was used as a housing site because it was unlawfully diverted and used as a housing site, and that the previous management company was used as a house without permission (a size of 149.58 square meters).
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant manager”). E., the expanded manager.
On December 30, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order (hereinafter “instant removal order”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s application for permission to engage in development activities on the ground that “the farmland was prior to an illegal diversion of farmland on part of the instant land (a size of about 100 square meters) contrary to Article 34(1) of the Farmland Act.” On the other hand, on January 14, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to voluntarily remove the portion of the instant manager’s unauthorized extension (around 149.58 square meters) pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act.
F. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against each of the instant dispositions, but the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 17, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 7, Eul evidence 1, 2 and Eul evidence 5.