건축허가불가처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance
A. The key issue of this case is: (a) since the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor has authorized the instant project implementation plan; (b) the instant disposition that allowed the building non-permission even after deeming the construction permission granted by the Defendant pursuant to Articles 88 and 92 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act was unlawful; and (c) the instant disposition that rejected the Plaintiff’s construction permission is illegal although the Plaintiff’s construction permission under the Building Act was a binding act; and (c) even if the construction permission was a discretionary act, the instant disposition was alleged to have been abused or abused beyond the discretionary authority.
The court of the first instance cannot be deemed to have held a consultation on the building permit of this case solely on the fact that the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor requested the defendant to hold a consultation, and it cannot be deemed that the building permit of urban planning facilities belongs to the discretionary act.
In light of the circumstances seen in the subsection, the instant disposition was deemed to have abused discretion.
The defendant appealed that even if the plaintiff performed the environmental impact assessment stipulated in the Environmental Impact Assessment Act while the plaintiff appealed, it is merely a requirement to minimize the environmental impact of the target project, and it cannot be an objective material for the long-term impact on the natural environment after the execution of the project in this case, and eventually, the disposition in this case is legitimate for the public interest purpose of preventing damage to the natural environment.
Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the third of the above plaintiff's assertion, namely, whether each of the dispositions of this case was abused or abused in violation of the principle of proportionality, etc.
B. The following circumstances are as follows: ① the Plaintiffs, from June 18, 2010, conducted the preliminary examination of the environment for the instant project from around June 18, 2010, and during that process, the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Han River Basin Environment Office.