건축허가신청반려처분취소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the first instance as follows, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In addition, the Plaintiffs asserts that the disposition of this case by the Defendant is unlawful, in light of the following: (a) the protection value of forests and fields adjacent to the land of this case is high due to the absence of a variety of protected trees; and (b) the residential environment of neighboring H village is likely to have a dust, noise, etc. in light of the size of the factory for which an application for a construction permit was filed or the distance from neighboring villages; and (c) the construction of small-scale factories, which is a civil construction project, has little impact on the traffic environment because there is little no civil construction project.
However, considering the possibility of judicial review of discretionary action based on the discretion of the administrative agency, the court will only examine whether the act in question is abused or abused of discretion without drawing the independent conclusion, and the examination of such deviation or abuse of discretion is subject to such determination, such as misconception of facts and violation of the principle of proportionality.
In addition, the fact that the administrative disposition by discretionary action exceeds the limits of the discretionary authority and thus is illegal does not need to be asserted by the person who asserts the validity of the administrative disposition and prove that the disposition is legitimate.
(See Supreme Court Decision 87Nu861 delivered on December 8, 1987, etc.). In light of the various circumstances properly stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the following facts are merely the reasons alleged by the Plaintiffs, or the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including the serial number). The instant disposition by the Defendant violated the principle of mistake of facts or proportionality, thereby abusing discretion.