건축허가불허처분취소
1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on February 9, 2017 revocation of the application for the return of the building permit (change of the purpose of use).
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land B and the above ground building located in Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. On November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit (extension) from the Defendant to extend the fourth floor of the instant building into a Class II neighborhood living facility (office), and filed an application for a building permit to change the third floor and fourth floor of the instant building to an amusement drinking facility (entertainment drinking house) on March 30, 2016. However, on April 11, 2016, the Defendant rejected an application for a permit to extend the use of the instant building to an amusement facility (entertainment drinking club) and to change the third floor and fourth floor of the instant building into a amusement drinking facility.
C. On July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit to extend the 4/5th floor of the instant building to a Class 1/2 neighborhood living facility (amended matters), and on February 3, 2017, filed an application for a building permit to change the use of the 1st floor (area 239.83 square meters; hereinafter “instant key part”) under the ground of the instant building from a Class 2 neighborhood living facility (general restaurant) to a amusement facility (hereinafter “instant application”), but the Defendant on February 9, 2017 (hereinafter “instant application”).
A disposition rejecting the instant application for the same reason as described in the subsection was made.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a general commercial area in the area where the instant building is located, and the distance from the nearby elementary school and middle school is considerably far away, and there is no particular hindrance to the residence and educational environment by irrelevant to the commuting routes in the city of Espawn. The instant disposition that rejected the instant application even though the instant application had already been conducted in the vicinity of the instant building, violates the principle of equality and non-discrimination.