건축물 착공신고신청서반려처분취소
1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on November 11, 2015 for the return of the construction commencement report shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit from the Defendant for the construction of five-story neighborhood life and detached houses (hereinafter “instant new building”) with the total floor area of 216.16 square meters on the ground (hereinafter “instant site”). On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff modified the design of the instant new building and obtained a modified permit for the said construction (hereinafter “instant building permit”).
B. On August 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a report on the commencement of the new building of this case with the Defendant, but the Defendant, around August 21, 2015, filed a re-application for a prior report on the specific construction project on the ground that the specific construction period, which was reported in advance to the Plaintiff, has expired, and requested supplementation to confirm whether it constitutes permission for development activities at the time of demolition of the existing retaining wall that was left after the construction line. The Plaintiff filed a prior report on the specific construction project on August 26, 2015.
C. On September 9, 2015, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement the “implementation of permission to engage in the development activities on the cutting and banking of retaining wall parts (land form and quality alteration) following the retirement of the building line,” and “the installation of drainage facilities after prior consultation with the land owner following the passage of another land (C) when connecting the public sewage pipes of the private drainage facilities with the land owner” (hereinafter “instant supplementary matters”). On October 13, 2015, the Defendant again requested supplementation of the aforementioned contents.
On November 11, 2015, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s report on the commencement of construction pursuant to Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act on the ground that the Plaintiff did not implement the supplementary measures in this case.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition of the instant disposition” does not have any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The instant disposition is unlawful on the grounds delineated below the Plaintiff’s assertion.
1. Article 21 of the Building Act and Article 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall be prescribed.