개발행위허가취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of permission to engage in development activities against B and C on April 10, 2015 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. B and C around March 2015 filed an application with the Defendant for permission for development activities aimed at creating a Class 1 neighborhood living facility (retailing store) on the ground of 1,806 square meters on the land located in 12,852 square meters of 12,852 square meters of the land located in Sungsung-si D and E.
B. At the time of the above application, B and C consented to the use of land necessary for the pertinent development activities for drainage in the Plaintiff’s name, stating that “B and C consent to use the land of 988 square meters and G 188 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to F in Sung-si, the Plaintiff owned for the purpose of development activities as a drainage necessary for development activities.” The Plaintiff’s seal impression is affixed to the Plaintiff’s name next to the Plaintiff’s name entered at the bottom of the consent to use the said multiple route.
C. On April 10, 2015, the Defendant notified B and C of the content that the said development act would be permitted (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that he/she consented to the use of the land of this case as a drainage method to B and C at all.
The Plaintiff, a neighboring resident, received a request from the Plaintiff to use the Plaintiff’s seal imprint and a certificate of personal seal in order to use the Plaintiff’s 1,408 square meters (hereinafter “I land”) located in the He’s house as a drainage, which is owned by the Plaintiff, as a neighboring resident, and received a request from H to require the Plaintiff’s seal imprint and the certificate of personal seal impression, and issued the Plaintiff’s seal imprint and the certificate of personal seal impression to H. The Plaintiff forged the Plaintiff’s consent to use the instant land as a multiple of the Plaintiff’s name using the above seal imprint, etc. without the Plaintiff’s consent or approval, and B, and C, as such, submitted a written consent to use as
Therefore, B and C are land of this case from the Plaintiff.