beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.02.09 2016구합64679

개발계획변경및실시계획인가신청반려처분취소

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be the resident registration injury, including the cost of assistance.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 21, 2013, the Gyeonggi-do Governor: (a) designated Pyeongtaek-si D Day as an urban development zone (hereinafter “instant urban development zone”); and (b) established and publicly announced a development plan ( Gyeonggi-do Notice E); (c) the Plaintiff was an association established on November 20, 2013, and was designated as an implementer of the said urban development project on August 8, 2014, to promote an urban development project that is in progress in the said urban development zone (hereinafter “instant urban development project”); and (d) designated as an implementer of the said urban development project.

B. On March 10, 2016 and March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for authorization for the amendment of the development plan and implementation plan of the instant urban development project with respect to the Defendant. The Defendant appears to be defective in the resolution of the general meeting of February 20, 2016 (hereinafter “instant general meeting”) that the Plaintiff lawfully held and held, and thus, rejected the said application on March 21, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

Therefore, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do determined that the authorization of the implementation plan was not applied for within three years from the date of the designation and announcement of the instant urban development zone, and on March 21, 2016, the designation of the instant urban development zone was revoked, and the topographic map was publicly announced.

(F) / [Grounds for Recognition] / [Notice of Gyeonggi-do] : Entry in Gap's 1, 3, 4, and Eul's 5 through 9 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the application for intervention

A. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assertion (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) does not constitute a third party whose rights or interests are infringed upon according to the outcome of the instant lawsuit, and thus, the instant motion for intervention is unlawful.

B. In order to participate in a supplementary action to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case, the party must have an interest in the outcome of the action, and the term "interest" in this context shall be de facto, economical or economic.