원상회복명령취소
1. On December 22, 2014, the Defendant’s order to reinstate the diversion of the use of illegal farmland against the Plaintiff is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 22, 197, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to B 3,963 square meters (hereinafter “land before subdivision”) prior to Busan-si, and on February 16, 2001, the Plaintiff divided C’s previous 2,452 square meters from the said land (hereinafter “instant land”) and D previous 1,021 square meters.
B. On February 10, 197 and the 18th day of the same month, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit from the Defendant on the land prior to subdivision with respect to 2 marries (328.95m2 of each building area) on the land before subdivision, and completed the construction of the building on September 5, 197, but did not undergo the completion inspection.
The 1st floor area of the structural use of the No. 1 story 1 story 387.92.2 21st floor wooden/st floor 32.52 166.32 41st floor 166.32, 129.08, 71.74, 57.74, 57.06 71st floor block/string 5th floor block/string 71.85, 21.85, 21.85, of wooden/string 57.06, of 71st floor floor block/string 57.85, of 57.86
C. After October 22, 1984, the Plaintiff received a completion inspection (hereinafter “instant completion inspection”) on each of the following buildings on the land before partition pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Readjustment of Specific Buildings (amended by Act No. 6253, Jan. 28, 2000; hereinafter “Specific Building Readjustment Act”) from the Defendant on October 22, 1984:
(The above buildings are on the land of this case).
On December 5, 2014, the Defendant received a civil petition stating that “the instant building is used as a household store, and is subject to the imposition and payment of farmland preservation charges,” and as a result of visiting the site on the 19th of the same month, confirmed that the Plaintiff used the instant building as a household warehouse, and confirmed that the remainder of the land outside the building site is used as a parking lot and a household receipt office, etc. by packaging it with concrete.
E. On December 22, 2014, the Defendant used the instant land as a household warehouse site without obtaining permission to divert farmland, pursuant to Article 42 of the Farmland Act, to the Plaintiff.