beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.12.02 2014구합7645

녹지점용허가거부처분 취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Under the Act on Urban Parks, Greenbelts, Etc. (hereinafter “Urban Park Act”), the land owned by the Plaintiff, who completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale as of November 24, 2006, is the land owned by the Plaintiff, which was registered for ownership transfer on January 5, 2007 by the Plaintiff (the trade name was changed at the time, but it was changed to the company of large-scale, company of large-scale, etc. on January 24, 2007).

B. On April 6, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained permission to occupy and use a green area for which the period of occupation and use is extended every seven times a total of seven years from April 25, 2007 to April 24, 2008, including obtaining permission to occupy and use a green area for the purpose and object of occupation and use as a used vehicle exhibition (hereinafter “instant permission”) under each of the following conditions (hereinafter “instant permission”) on April 9, 2013, including obtaining permission to occupy and use a green area for the purpose and object of occupation and use of a used vehicle (the period of occupation and use up to April 24, 2014).

C. However, on March 3, 2014, the Defendant issued a prior notice to the Plaintiff on the following grounds: “As it is difficult to see a used vehicle exhibition for business purposes and an off-road parking lot offered to the general public, the Defendant issued an order to process the permission for the occupation and use of the instant land only for the legal purposes as possible after the expiration of the period of occupation and use of the Plaintiff.” After the expiration of the final occupancy and use period, the Plaintiff issued a prior notice to reinstate the instant land since the permission for the occupation and use of a green area for the purpose of a used vehicle exhibition was inappropriate. At that time, the Plaintiff’s defect in the application for the extension of the permission for the occupation and use of the instant land on April 1, 2014, on the same ground as the said prior notice, pursuant to Article 38 of the Park and Greenbelts Act, Article 43 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Urban Parks, Greenbelts, Etc. (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2585, Sep. 2