도시관리계획변경입안의제안거부처분취소
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 March 22, 2011, Nonparty A proposed a formulation of an urban management plan with a content of installing a road and a plaza on a part of the land of approximately KRW 3,500 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) such as Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, and C (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. Accordingly, on July 11, 201, the Defendant: (a) made a decision on an urban management plan to install roads and squares on the instant land as D/D, and made a public announcement of the determination of an urban management plan and topographic drawings; (b) made a project implementer A on April 9, 2012; and (c) made a new announcement of the designation of the project implementer of urban planning facilities and the public announcement of the modification of the implementation plan (the public announcement E) to gratuitously revert the roads and squares (hereinafter referred to as “road and squares in this case”) to the area of 145.4 square meters on the instant land; (d) a road with an extended area of 32 meters (ro 3-799 lines) and the area of 429.4 square meters on the instant land.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant urban management plan”), which was implemented in accordance with the aforementioned series of processes, shall be deemed to be the “instant urban management plan.”
A around June 2012, A completed the construction of the road and square in this case.
The Plaintiff becomes the highest bidder of the instant land in the procedure of auction for the sale of real estate G (Dual) real estate (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) with respect to the instant land, etc., and paid the sale price on September 24, 2013, and acquired the instant land.
E. On July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff proposed to the Defendant to formulate an amendment to an urban management plan to abolish and change the instant road and plaza pursuant to Article 26 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”). On August 22, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting the proposal (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful