하천점용허가 연장신청 반려 취소 청구
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 11, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained permission to occupy and use a river (hereinafter “instant application site”) from the Defendant on the following grounds: B, C, D, and E (hereinafter “instant application site”); land (parking lot, miscellaneous land); land occupation; 2,393 square meters in the occupied area; and period of occupation and use: From January 11, 2012 to December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained permission to occupy and use a river by designating it as “the permission to use and use a river”.
(hereinafter referred to as the “previous Permit”). (b)
On November 28, 2016, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a guidance on applying for extension of the content that “the period of previous occupancy and use of permission expires on December 31, 2016, and requests the Plaintiff to submit an application for extension no later than December 26, 2016.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of previous permission to the Defendant on December 6, 2016.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant application”). C.
On the other hand, on December 6, 2016, F applied for the permission to occupy and use the instant land to the Defendant from January 1, 2017 to the period from January 1, 2017.
On January 3, 2017, the Defendant applied for permission to occupy and use the instant application to the Plaintiff. ② The Defendant designated the instant application site as a zone No. 4 for the G ecological river development project and planned the relevant river maintenance project, and is in progress with the process of modifying and promoting the urban management plan (district unit planning zone) as a private project in the tourism department.The instant case’s ground (hereinafter “each sequence”) was based on the detailed criteria for permission to occupy and use the instant application (No. 2016-160 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s notification; hereinafter “the instant detailed criteria”).
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). (e)
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 1, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion.