건축허가 복합민원 불허가처분 취소 청구의 소
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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a dismissal or supplement in addition as prescribed in paragraph (2). Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Parts in case of dismissal or addition; and
A. According to the result of the on-site inspection of this court as to whether the application in this case is in harmony with the surrounding environment or landscape, it is located in a place where it is difficult to view the village or road because all sides are surrounded by surrounding mountain, and it is recognized that the application in this case is located far away from Q village to 1.2 km. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the application in this case is not in harmony with the surrounding landscape if the instant money company is constructed.
On the other hand, according to the result of the on-site inspection by the court, the water system of the application site of this case is found to have been entered K where ditches flow along the irrigation channel and flowing into L reservoir. In the future, if sewage or wastewater flows out due to the failure of management by the plaintiff in the future, it is likely that water sources might be contaminated through ditches and farming ditches.
Considering these circumstances, it is difficult to view the contents of the instant application to be in harmony with the surrounding environment, such as the actual use condition of neighboring areas, land use plan, water drainage, and drainage of rivers, lakes and marshes, wetlands, etc.
B. The part of the first instance judgment, 7th page 7 to 8th page 15, which securing access roads, shall be followed as follows.
In particular, we examine whether the access road of this case claimed by the Plaintiff constitutes “the access road to the existing village, farm road, etc. accessible to vehicle access,” which is an exception provision in paragraph 3-3-2-1 (3) of the Guidelines for Operation of Permission for Development Activities.”
Article 2 (1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Road of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (hereinafter referred to as the "Agricultural and Fishing Villages Road") shall not apply to the roads that are not prescribed by the Road Act, such as the traffic convenience and production and distribution activities of residents in rural areas