건축허가취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a construction permit to newly construct a stable on the ground of the 2,918m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) located in the Hamyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, B (hereinafter “instant land”).
(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)
On November 6, 2018, in relation to the Plaintiff’s application for the above building permit, the Committee deliberated on the development permit, and decided to reject the above deliberation on the ground that “the development permit was located in the surrounding village and farmland for malodor and landscape pursuant to the provisions of Article 58(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) for the sake of malodor and landscape.”
C. On November 26, 2018, the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition with respect to the instant application for the same reason as the result of the National Planning Committee of Pyeongtaek-gun on the same date.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] A. 2, 8, 10 Evidence No. 2, 8, 10 Evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The building permit granted by a person holding a building permit under the Building Act constitutes a sort of binding act, and there is no such circumstance despite the fact that the Defendant’s construction of stable upon the instant application does not pose malodor and environmental pollution, nor does it pose a risk of causing harm to landscape and achieve harmony with the environment and landscape around the instant land, so the instant disposition does not have any ground for disposition.
3. The plaintiff secured access roads around the land in order to prevent traffic congestion and accidents, and the form and appearance of the stable to be newly constructed by the plaintiff do not reach the degree of aversion or violation of safety.