건축허가신청반려처분취소
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Permission for development activities under Article 56 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 11922, Jul. 16, 2013; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and consultation on permission for diversion of farmland under Article 34 of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “ Farmland Act”) are the indefinite concept of requirements, and administrative agencies are granted discretion to determine whether each requirement is satisfied. As such, changing the form and quality of land under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and permission for diversion of farmland under the Farmland Act are discretionary acts.
In addition, the judicial review of an administrative act that constitutes a discretionary act, unlike the judicial review of an administrative agency’s discretionary act, has not made an independent conclusion, taking into account the existence of public interest judgment based on the discretion of the administrative agency, and has only examined whether the relevant act is a deviation or abuse of discretionary power. The examination of whether such a deviation or abuse of discretionary power is subject to such determination, such as misconception of facts and violation of the principle of proportionality and the principle of proportionality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du6181, Jul. 14, 2005). As to such deviation or abuse of discretionary power, a person who disputes
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu861, Dec. 8, 1987). 2. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts. A.
(1) On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) on the ground of the land (hereinafter “the instant application site”), tin-ri, tin-ri, tin-ri, and one parcel (hereinafter “the Defendant”), the instant case involving “the excreta and garbage treatment facilities for the production and use of biogas using livestock excreta” (hereinafter “the instant application site”).