금지행위 및 시설해제 신청 거부처분 취소
1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Plaintiff B obtained a construction permit from the competent authority to construct the first underground floor and the seventh floor urban-type residential housing and the second-class residential building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1/2’s co-ownership share of Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant land”).
Plaintiff
B commenced the building around April 2013 and completed it around February 10, 2015.
B. In two times, Plaintiff B revealed that the instant building is an urban-type residential house and a lodging facility of the name “D” rather than Class II neighborhood living facilities, and filed an application for prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities in school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone pursuant to Article 6(1) proviso of the former School Health Act (amended by Act No. 13946, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same) pursuant to Article 6(1) proviso of the former School Health Act (amended by Act No. 13946, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same), but the Defendant rejected all of the respective applications filed by Plaintiff B on December 18 and January 14, 2014.
C. On October 19, 2016, Plaintiff A, the spouse of Plaintiff B, revealed that it was a plan to operate the instant building as a Hosel, and applied for prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities within the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone (hereinafter “instant application”). However, the Defendant rejected Plaintiff A’s application on November 8, 2016.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, and 10 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. According to the plaintiffs' assertion 1), the illegal defendant merely notified the application of this case as "Prohibition" and did not present the grounds for the disposition. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it violates Article 23 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2) The illegal plaintiffs in substance will not allow accommodation of Chinese group tourists in the building of this case.