건축허가신청 반려처분 처분 취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.
Details of the disposition
The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
On July 2, 2012, the first ground for the Defendant’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition (hereinafter “influence with the non-permanent and surrounding areas of deliberation by the Building Committee”) was determined and publicly announced as the area of the Incheon Urban Management Planning (D District Unit Planning) on July 2, 2012, where the instant land is located.
The above plan includes a report on the determination of urban planning concerning the use, building-to-land ratio, volume ratio, height, allocation, color, and building lines of buildings, and the protocol [Attachment 4] provides for the classification of colors of buildings according to the use of land. The religious facilities of this case have colors that do not conform to the above classification table.
In addition, the height of the religious facility of this case is 26.6 meters and the total floor area is 6,428.26 meters, and it is not in harmony with the neighboring building in a very large size.
On July 17, 2015, the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Building Committee rejected the construction deliberation on the purport of re-examination of the entrance, color, etc. of the instant religious facility, but filed an application for the instant building permit without supplementation of the application for reexamination or deficiencies. On this ground, the Defendant requested several supplementations on the ground that the appearance (e.g., color, etc.) of the instant religious facility does not conform to the urban management plan (district unit planning), but the Plaintiff did not comply
Accordingly, since the Defendant rendered the instant disposition pursuant to Article 15(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26980, Feb. 12, 2016), the instant disposition is lawful.
The instant religious facility building permit concerning the grounds for the disposition added by this Court (hereinafter “the need for the important public interest”).