도시계획결정 무효확인 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. In the first instance trial on December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff sought confirmation on the invalidity of modification on a astronomical Urban Planning (Fiscal Expenses) for the Defendant with respect to the area of 360 square meters prior to YYYYY B, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, and the conjunctively sought confirmation on the Defendant’s revocation of rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on March 18, 2014 and the Defendant’s omission as to the Plaintiff’s application for cancellation of the urban planning decision on March 13, 2014. The first instance court dismissed the part of the conjunctive claim seeking confirmation on illegality of omission among the instant lawsuit, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim and the remainder of the conjunctive claim.
As a result, only the plaintiff appealed for the preliminary claim seeking revocation of the defendant's rejection disposition of the application for cancellation of the decision of the city planning on March 18, 2014, the scope of the court's trial is limited to the preliminary claim seeking revocation of the defendant's rejection disposition of cancellation of the decision of the city planning on March 18, 2014.
2. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the application for revocation of the decision of revocation of urban planning on March 18, 2014 among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases of dismissal under Sections 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is cited.
[Attachment] In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, i.e., population allocation plans, land use plans, and traffic and communications plans, are included in the urban planning decision of this case or the civil petition conference’s assertion that it was illegal by abusing or abusing discretionary power, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, the defendant is acknowledged by the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4-3 and No. 11-1 and all of the arguments, i.e., a population allocation plans, land use plans, and traffic and communications plans, etc. through proper balancing of interests.