하천점용허가처분 취소
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 April 2012, the Plaintiff obtained occupation and use permission for the purpose of occupation and use of land (other - outdoor site) and for the period of occupation and use from April 14, 2012 to December 31, 2016, with respect to 1,340 square meters of land of 27,343 square meters (hereinafter “the instant river site”).
B. Around May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff additionally applied for permission to occupy and use a river site of this case to the Defendant for the purpose of using 4,615 square meters in the site of this case as a field yard.
C. The Defendant confirmed that the owner of DNA and E-land adjacent to the instant river site is the UND Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “NT Engineering”), and on May 29, 2013 and the same year.
7. Around February 2, 200, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to supplement and submit an application for permission to occupy and use a river accompanied by the UN Eth engineering consent form, which is the owner of the instant adjacent land. However, the Plaintiff’s application for permission to occupy and use a river was rejected on August 6, 2013.
On August 19, 2013, DNA Engineering applied for permission to occupy and use 2,524 square meters of the instant river site (hereinafter “instant river site”) to the Defendant. On August 28, 2013, the Defendant: (a) obtained permission to occupy and use a site for the purpose of occupation and use on the instant river site from August 28, 2013 to December 31, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (b) obtained permission to occupy and use a site for the purpose of occupation and use on the instant river site from August 28, 2013 to December 31, 2017.
E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said administrative appeal was dismissed on February 19, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 5, 7, 9, 10, Eul evidence or video evidence 1, 2, 5 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted 1 from 1991 to 1991 that part of the instant river site was used and used, and around 192.