건축허가취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 2, 2013, the Defendant received an application for permission to engage in an act for changing the form and quality of land and an application for a building permit, etc., prepared in the name of the “D Village Association” for the construction of Class I neighborhood living facilities (community work site) with respect to the aggregate of 1,321 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff within a development-restricted zone, which is located within a development-restricted zone. On January 16, 2013, the Defendant issued a building permit (hereinafter “instant building permit”).
B. On the other hand, on April 8, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment of KRW 5 million as the Act on Special Measures for the Prevention of Obstruction of Fraudulent Acts and the Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development, on the criminal facts that “the Plaintiff, as if he/she was to build a village community workplace on E and the instant land, prepared a false document under the name of D Village Association and obtained permission for use for personal purposes.” The Plaintiff conspired to submit a false business plan, etc. of D Village Association in the name of D Village Association, which was prepared by the public official in charge of the construction permission atHanam-si, to obtain the instant construction permission, and thereby interfere with the official’s legitimate examination duties by fraudulent means, and thereby interfered with the construction of the instant building permission by fraudulent or other illegal means, and a fine of KRW 5 million was determined at that time.
C. On November 20, 2017, the Defendant revoked the instant building permit (hereinafter “instant disposition”) based on Article 30(1)2 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Restriction on Development Restriction Zones”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff submitted forged application materials, false project plans, etc. to obtain the instant building permit by unlawful means.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1.