토석채취허가신청불허가처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 20, 1994, the Plaintiff engaged in quarrying, etc. obtained permission to collect earth and stones under Article 25 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act on four lots, other than Jinju-si B (hereinafter “B”), and collected earth and stones until December 2004.
B. In addition, on January 29, 2004, the Plaintiff collected earth and stones from D and 30,682 square meters in six lots, adjacent to the above quarrying, and collected earth and stones until February 2007.
(hereinafter referred to as “a stone collection site” and “a stone collection site” are combined with a stone collection site located in four parcels and six parcels.
On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff again filed an application for permission to collect earth and stones (hereinafter “instant application”) with respect to E and 2 lots outside E located at a distance of approximately 300 meters north of the Quarrying (hereinafter “the instant site”) located on the north of the Quarrying, and 61,767 square meters (hereinafter “the instant site”).
The photographic1
D. On June 20, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission to collect earth and stones (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the following grounds to the Plaintiff.
From around 1994 to 2007, the Plaintiff collected earth and stone in the past quarrying, and caused rupture, noise, and F water pollution in the roadside housing, and the Plaintiff did not take appropriate measures therefor, the neighboring residents suffered from the damage due to the operation of the stone collection station for the past over a long period of time are expected to suffer damage to landscape, noise, dust, water pollution, etc. due to the installation of the stone collection station in which the Plaintiff actively opposed the installation of the stone collection station.
E. Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, the Plaintiff was dismissed on September 28, 2017.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 12, and 22 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Attached Form of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
3. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant site is surrounded by forests and fields near all sides.