beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.11.14 2012구합4043

도로지정처분취소

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the number Nos. 1 to 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 to 14, 16, and 17 listed in the separate sheet are against land.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 36,966 square meters G forest land G 36,966 square meters in Mineyang-si F (hereinafter “F”), and Plaintiff B, C, and D are the owners of H forest land 19,695 square meters.

(1) Of each of the above lands, the part of the land designated as a road is collectively referred to as “instant land” and the part of the land designated as a road among the land Nos. 1 through 18 listed in the separate sheet is owned by the owners of the above land.

B. In order to file an application with the Defendant for a building permit for Class I and II neighborhood living facilities (manufacturing facility and retail store) on the first ground, the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) obtained the consent to use the road from the owners of the instant passage, except the instant land and the No. 12, as indicated in the [Attachment List No. 12] among the instant passage, but did not obtain the consent from the Plaintiffs and J, and requested the Defendant to deliberate on the designation of the road as to the instant passage.

Accordingly, on May 8, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the opinion of the land owner upon the request for deliberation on the designation of the above road by May 18, 2012, and the Plaintiffs submitted their opinion to the Defendant to the effect that they oppose the designation of the road.

C. On May 23, 2012, the Defendant held a luminous Building Committee pursuant to Article 45(1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Building Act”) and Article 21(1) of the Building Ordinance at the time of lightyang. As a result of deliberation, the said Building Committee decided that the instant passage was reasonable on the ground that “the instant passage is a de facto passage used as a long-term passage, and is adjacent to the site of the existing building, and there was a fact that the building permit was granted.”

Accordingly, on June 13, 2012, the Defendant designated and publicly announced the instant passage as K, a road with a length of 489.4m and width of 6-10m.

In this case.