건축허가사항변경(3차설계변경)허가처분취소
1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
1. The reasons why the court of the first instance should explain are as follows. The judgment on the argument that the plaintiff (appointed party) repeatedly emphasizes in this court is re-emphasized, and the defendant-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor was corrected from the trial to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor following the change of the competent authority, and all except for the change of this part, it is identical to the reasons of the first instance judgment. Thus, this part shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion
A. The main point of the assertion is that the 2nd lot rise building that is able to be constructed by the instant disposition (hereinafter “instant building”) is an aviation obstacle constructed on the course of entry into and exit from the scarcity, and therefore, it is apparent that the said building has an impact on the entry into and exit from the aircraft if it is constructed, and thus, it may have an impact on the air force and national defense power of the Republic of Korea and substantial impact on national security
Ultimately, the instant disposition is directly affected by the lives, property, occupation, etc. of the plaintiffs who are nationals of the Republic of Korea, and thus, it should be deemed that there exists a legal interest in seeking the revocation, etc. of the instant disposition.
B. Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “A revocation suit may be instituted by a person who has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of a disposition, etc., and Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “A lawsuit seeking the confirmation of nullity, etc. may be instituted by a person who has a legal interest in seeking the confirmation of validity or existence of a disposition, etc.”
Accordingly, in order to perform an administrative litigation seeking revocation of a disposition, etc. as a party and to receive a judgment on the merits, in principle, it shall be limited to a person who has a conflict of interest in the confirmation of existence or absence of an administrative disposition which is the subject matter of the lawsuit. However, even if it is a third party who is not the other party