개발행위허가취소처분
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 25, 2012, the Plaintiff, a person operating B Co., Ltd., filed an application for development activities with the Defendant to create a site for a construction material site on the 1,924 square meters and E field 2,023 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) located in the neighboring land in the Jeonju-gun, Jeonju-gun, Seoul, where a production factory B (hereinafter “instant factory”) is located.
Pursuant to Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), on February 28, 2012, the Defendant permitted development activities on each of the instant land, based on the purpose of the project from February 28, 2012 to December 31, 2012, as construction works for construction sites.
(hereinafter “instant permission disposition”). (b)
On March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for a completion inspection on development activities with the Defendant pursuant to Article 62 of the National Land Planning Act, but the Defendant ordered supplementation of the installation of a drainage pipe, the site and the miscellaneous snow, etc., and ordered a completion inspection on April 17, 2013. The Plaintiff filed an application for a completion inspection on re-building development activities on May 31, 2013, but the Defendant issued an order to supplement the installation of a drainage pipe, the site and the instant factory site, and the installation of facilities capable of separating each of the instant land, and issued a temporary completion inspection on July 15, 2013.
C. On March 3, 2014, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s permission to engage in development activities for each of the instant lands on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not perform the conditions of permission under Article 19-2(1)3 of the Ordinance on the Plans for Full-Time, Full-Time, and Full-Time, Full-Time, Seoul Metropolitan Area Planning.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of revocation”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The disposition of revocation of the Plaintiff’s assertion should be revoked on the ground that the following defects are illegal.