건축허가취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the first instance court’s fifth to fourth to six pages 1. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(A) Article 7760 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Community Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1358, Aug. 23, 1991; Presidential Decree No. 13588, Feb. 23, 1991; Presidential Decree No. 18850, Feb. 23, 1991; Presidential Decree No. 18887, Feb. 29, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 18887, Feb. 23, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 188887, Feb. 29, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 18870, Feb. 23, 2001).
Even if the plaintiff's trust interests are considered, leaving the building of this case newly constructed with a building permit obtained by fraudulent or other illegal means even though it is impossible to construct within a development restriction zone in principle, it would impair the legislative intent of the former Development Restriction Zone Act with the aim of preventing urban disorderly expansion and ensuring the healthy living environment for urban citizens by preserving the natural environment surrounding the city, and goes against the public interest. The plaintiff does not exist within the development restriction zone with the purpose of raising rent profits.