임대주택건설사업계획승인처분취소
1. The defendant’s assistant intervenor’s application for intervention on January 21, 2016, which was added in the trial, shall not be permitted.
2. The plaintiff.
1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the application for intervention by the Defendant Intervenor on January 21, 2016
A. On January 21, 2016, at the trial of the defendant assistant intervenor ex officio, we examine whether the application for intervention by the defendant assistant intervenor was legitimate.
B. The Defendant’s Intervenor applied for intervention in the first instance trial and maintained the status of the Defendant’s Intervenor in the trial. Nevertheless, as the Defendant’s Intervenor applied for intervention in the trial on January 21, 2016 at the same time, it is reasonable to deny the Defendant’s application for intervention in the trial on January 21, 2016.
2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part is as follows: (a) in addition to the fact that the “L large 293 square meters” in the 5th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed as “N large 293 square meters” in the 7th sentence of the judgment; and (b) inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the “1. Report on Disposition” in the 5th sentence of the judgment of the
3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
4. The reasoning of the court’s determination as to the legitimacy of the part seeking approval of the instant project plan and revocation of the instant district unit plan among the instant lawsuit is as follows: “The part seeking approval of the instant project plan and revocation of the instant district unit plan among the instant lawsuit is legitimate” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
5. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition, such as designation of the implementer of this case
A. The Plaintiff’s claim for approval of the instant project plan and the instant district unit plan are unlawful due to the following defects. As long as the preceding disposition becomes invalid retroactively, the prior disposition should be revoked.
1. According to Article 16(4)1 of the Housing Act, the instant district unit plan needs to be jointly determined by the Defendant Intervenor, together with C.