지하수개발,이용허가신청 반려처분취소 청구
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff reported the excavation report, the excavation report, and the excavation report for the purpose of the groundwater impact investigation as follows with respect to the land excavation report, the excavation report, and the excavation completion for the purpose of the groundwater impact investigation with respect to the Daegu Suwon-gu B (hereinafter “instant land”) among the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”) via CAD Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CAD Construction”) and HAD Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CB”), and the Defendant accepted each of the above reports.
- - Report on Excavation on December 29, 2010 600 meters in the depth of excavation and 200 meters in the diameter of excavation site - The defendant: Acceptance of the above report on January 3, 2011 - Report on Excavation on February 22, 2011 (1,000 meters in depth) - the defendant: acceptance of the above report on February 25, 201 - The report on the completion of excavation on March 4, 2011 - the defendant: acceptance of the report on the completion of excavation on March 9, 201 - the report on the completion of excavation on July 23, 201 - the report on the deep completion of excavation on July 23, 201 (1,000 meters in depth) - the report on the deep completion of excavation on July 23, 201 - the above report on the excavation on July 23, 2012 - the above report on the completion of excavation on July 213, 2013.
B. On August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to develop and utilize groundwater with the content that the instant development hole excavated 1,030 meters along with a groundwater impact investigation report and installed a water pumping facility at a point of 450 meters within 250 meters per day to develop and utilize groundwater (hereinafter “the first application”). On August 28, 2012, the Defendant changed the Plaintiff from 1,000 to 1,030 meters of the excavation depth of groundwater, but the confirmation was 1,000 meters of the excavation report (i.e., the depth of excavation) and the excavation depth should be prior to the report on the alteration of excavation (i.e., 1,030 meters of the excavation depth), and the groundwater impact investigation report should be attached to the investigation report that conducted at a point of 1,000 meters of the excavation depth.
On October 24, 2012, the Plaintiff rejected the first application. C. On October 26, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for permission to develop and utilize groundwater again (hereinafter “second application”) by changing the depth of excavation to 1,000 meters, and the Defendant on October 26, 2012.