건축신고수리거부처분취소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a building report with the Defendant pursuant to Article 14 of the Building Act to newly construct one unit of detached house with a building area of 81.5 square meters on the ground of 2,278 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
(hereinafter “instant building report”). (b)
On June 2, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on June 2, 2017 that “The roads (D) in front of the instant land cannot be connected to other roads registered on the register, and the owner of the roads currently being used may interfere with access to the relevant building if the passage is obstructed.”
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] . [In the absence of dispute, each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant land is adjacent to the instant land, which is a forest road built on the adjacent “Road D, G, and the said J roads, etc. (hereinafter “instant forest road”).
(2) Since the instant land is connected to “F”, it constitutes “F” under Article 44(1) of the Building Act, and thus, constitutes “where the site of a building adjoins to a road at least two meters.” However, even if not, it constitutes “F,” a case where it is deemed that there is no hindrance to the entry of a building” under Article 44(1)1 of the Building Act.
Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful because there is no ground for disposition.
3 Even if not, the instant disposition is unlawful as it violates the principle of trust protection.
In other words, in the vicinity of the instant land, each of the above M-ground storage, the above G and the above N-ground are already constructed, and the Plaintiff trusted the acceptance of the existing building report and the instant building report.