개발행위허가 신청 반려처분 취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of return of an application for permission for development activities rendered to the Plaintiffs on November 5, 2019 is revoked.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 20, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities on August 20, 2018, respectively, to install solar power facilities (hereinafter “instant power facilities”) on a 1,612 square meters wide among the 6,650 square meters of Gangwon-gun E-gun E Institute (hereinafter “instant application site”).
(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)
On August 26, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the “Conditional Resolution” on the instant application under the condition that the Gun Planning Committee would resolve the civil petition against the neighboring resident.
C. On September 25, 2019, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to supplement through a letter of “a demand to supplement the permission for development activities (A and 3 others)”, and on October 14, 2019, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the final supplement by October 31, 2019.
On November 5, 2019, the Defendant rendered non-permission for the following reasons with respect to the instant application.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). He/she will return an application for permission for development activities pursuant to Articles 24 and 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act because he/she fails to resolve the “settlement of civil petitions against neighboring residents” subject to conditional resolution according to the result of deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee.
[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 through 5, Purport of whole pleadings]
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion presented Articles 24 and 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter "Civil Petitions Treatment Act") as the basis law at the time of the disposition of this case.
However, each of the above provisions is merely applicable to “a case where any supplementary procedural or formal defect exists,” and it cannot be used as the basis for the above provisions when demanding the resolution of civil petitions by residents as in the instant case.
The defendant's ground for the disposition of this case is that there is no reason other than the resolution of civil petition against residents.