건축허가신청반려처분취소
1. On April 20, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of rejecting an application for building permit filed against the Plaintiff is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 10, 2008, the Plaintiff, jointly with B and C, was sold in lots from the Busan Urban Corporation with D & 329.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 7, 201.
B. On March 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit (hereinafter “instant application”) to construct the instant building on the instant land, which is comprised of three floors above the building area of 161.84 square meters, total floor area of 390.14 square meters (one Dong), detached houses, and second class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”).
C. On March 18, 2015, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the following matters:
(1) The area concerned shall be an area in which a master plan for the creation of a master plan for the creation of a master plan for the celebry of the Dongsan relocation complex is prepared and implemented - requiring the submission of points marks by formulating a design plan in accordance with the standards for application of master plans to attached buildings - the area concerned shall be in need of the adjustment of the number of floors to not more than two stories through a general meeting of the village community of construction co-owners on the low floor in order to secure a residential-centered landscape, view, etc. in the E village.
D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff: (a) repreparationd the design drawings with respect to paragraph (2) and (3); (b) however, it was unlawful to restrict the construction permission on the grounds of the matters determined by the village general meeting without following statutes or municipal ordinances, such as the Building Act, and thus, it cannot be corrected; and (c) on April 8, 2015, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the said matters again.
E. However, the plaintiff refused the above request for supplement, and the defendant on April 20, 2015, "the relevant area is a residential-oriented landscape and a residential-oriented landscape in the E village.