beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.16 2015구합69769

정비구역지정처분취소

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. In order to promote the three-stage residential environment improvement project of Pyeongtaek-si D (village name E), the Defendant prepared and submitted a business plan before the public invitation of a new business plan for the development of general agricultural and fishing villages in 2014, administered by the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries around January 3, 2013, and was selected as a site for the residential environment improvement project around January 3, 2014, and received national and local subsidies.

B. On September 7, 2015, the Defendant publicly announced the designation of the KRW 63,032 square meters of Pyeongtaek-si D (hereinafter “instant project”) as a rearrangement zone for the residential environment improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”), and publicly announced topographic drawings.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si F. 377 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in the said improvement zone, and Nonparty G is the owner of H 536.1 square meters in the said improvement zone. The instant land and G are located between 1,428 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”).

The change drawings of the road of this case due to the disposition of this case are as shown in attached Form 1 and video.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 was planned to be a straight line of 8 to 10 meters in width by the initial announcement, but the instant disposition changed to a slick-ro slock road of 6 meters in width due to the instant disposition.

The Plaintiff has a plan to remove the previous houses and newly build a new building in the instant land. If a road is to be constructed according to the above alteration, serious danger to traffic safety of many unspecified persons, such as the Plaintiff, family members, customers, and neighboring residents using the instant road would occur. In particular, three adjacent roads leading to the instant road are scheduled around the instant land.