도시계획결정 무효확인 등
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the conjunctive claim seeking confirmation of illegality of omission shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's primary features.
1. The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4-1, 3, and Eul evidence 6-3.
The Defendant, based on the old Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6655, Jan. 1, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the “former Urban Planning Act”), made a decision on the alteration of the urban planning (financial expenses) which includes the content that newly establishes a national map of eight meters wide on the north-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan City (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) with a width of 360 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “former Urban Planning Act”), and then publicly announced it as C on March 6, 1993 following all the procedure of public inspection and announcement for hearing the opinions of residents as prescribed by the above Act.
The defendant, on January 18, 2001, made a decision to modify the urban planning that changes the use form, starting point, and ending point of the road among the above urban planning decision, and publicly notified as D in the astronomical City Notification on the same day.
In addition, on December 1, 2008, the defendant made a decision to modify the urban planning with the content of changing the total area, etc., and notified it to the astronomical Public Notice E on the same.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on urban planning”). B.
The Plaintiff acquired and owned the Plaintiff’s land ownership on February 14, 2012 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.
C. On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition against the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s response (i.e., the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant to the effect that “the city planning has not yet been implemented until the present, and the Plaintiff’s property rights are infringed.” As such, the Plaintiff’s response may be
B. On March 18, 2014, the Defendant may not rescind part of the relevant parcel of land as the road connecting 2-49 to 2-670 in the middle of the city planning road on March 18, 2014.