건축허가(신축)신청 불허가 처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court concerning the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion as follows, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant deemed the instant housing as a legitimate building, and paid compensation to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) and the Enforcement Decree thereof. As such, the Plaintiff should apply for the instant building permit to the Plaintiff as a person who received compensation pursuant to the Land Compensation Act pursuant to Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] 5(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones”). However, the grounds for non-permission on the Plaintiff’s application for the building permit are that the instant housing portion was located at the time of the designation of the development restriction zone and that was independent of the management number D housing (H housing in this case) recorded in the management ledger of the existing development restriction zone, and thus,
(1) Article 12(1)1(e) of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act provides that a building permit under Article 12(1)1(e) may not be granted. Since the Land Compensation Act and the Development Restriction Zone Act differ in their legislative purpose and application, the Land Compensation Act differs, even if the Plaintiff received compensation for the Plaintiff’s housing portion from the Defendant under the Land Compensation Act, Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] 5(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act provides that an existing house, i.e., an existing house, which is a requirement