토지형질변경허가신청 반려처분 취소 청구
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate even if both the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the partial dismissal of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The portion of the 8th parallel 12th to the 9th parallel 5th parallel "dol" has been written in the following manner:
According to the supplementary contents, part of the previous area planned as a retaining wall shall be changed to a L-type retaining wall, and part of the part abutting on the site of the relevant restaurant shall be excluded from the application area, and that part shall be additionally installed as a L-type retaining wall up to the part. In addition, the retaining wall of the reinforcement shall be from 0.5 to 2.5m, the height of the retaining wall shall be from 0.3 to 0.5m, and the length shall be 18.4m (attached Form 3 shall also be 41m in error).
(2) Although the amount of the L-type retaining wall is reduced to one another, the total length of the retaining wall installed is from 21.5m to 34.2m without any difference in height. As such, the complementary contents include not only the total length of the retaining wall installed (52.6m = 34.2m reinforced retaining wall of 18.4m) but also the initial contents of the application (47.1m = 21.5m reinforced retaining wall of L-type retaining wall of 21.5m = 25.6m) but also the width of the access wall is reduced compared to the initial contents of the application and the size of the parking lot site and the size of the earth is reduced to a certain degree, it is difficult to view that the change in the form of the land would cause damage to the development restriction zone, as the same applies to the change in the area of the parking lot and the size of the earth. The second side of the 11st part of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act, which is operated within the development restriction zone with permission of the Plaintiff.