용도변경허가처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of approving the application for change of a building indication filed against B, C, and D on February 17, 2014 is revoked.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the implementer of an urban development project established on April 19, 201, which was established on April 19, 201 by having the business area (hereinafter “instant urban development zone”) 844,010 cubic meters from Pyeongtaek-si E-si and is the implementer of an urban development project established on April 19, 201, and is currently preparing a replotting plan, and did not have
B. On September 13, 2013, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do authorized an implementation plan under the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice No. 2013-250 with respect to the instant project zone, and the district unit plan formulated accordingly, the Gyeonggi-do Governor is designated as the general square for the daily cost of the land Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. On January 15, 2014, B, C, and D (hereinafter “B, etc.”) leased to F the instant land E-Dong single-story building [the instant building] of Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) 66.5 square meters, Class II neighborhood living facilities (offices) 66.5 square meters, and “the instant building”] among Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) 66.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”).
B, etc. filed an application with the Defendant to change the entries in the column for use in the building ledger of the instant building from “Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores)” to “Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) 3.25 cubic meters and Class II neighborhood living facilities (offices) 3.25 cubic meters,” and the Defendant did not hear the Plaintiff’s opinion and modified the entries in the column for use in the building ledger of the instant building, as filed by B, etc. on February 17, 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap’s entries in Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and Eul’s No. 5 (including additional numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense
A. The purpose of Article 9(5) of the Urban Development Act is to obtain permission from the head of Si/Gun to change the purpose of use, and Article 16(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is an implementer of an urban development project prior to the above permission.