beta
(영문) 서울고등법원(춘천) 2016.01.18 2015누1095

개발행위불허가처분 취소

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as follows: (a) the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 10977, Jul. 28, 201; (b) the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 10977, Jul. 28, 201; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”); (c) the Enforcement Decree of the same Act No. 19 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23502, Jan. 6, 2012; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act”) in the first instance judgment; and (d) the same shall apply to the corresponding part, except as otherwise stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. According to Article 59 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the form and quality of land aimed at constructing a building or installing a structure in a management area shall undergo deliberation by the Si/Gun Urban Planning Committee. However, in rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant did not go through deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee in violation of this provision.

B. The instant application was filed with respect to the land corresponding to the part of the instant application, without filing an application for permission for the entire project, since it was delayed to implement forest restoration works on the land to be used for the instant project, and the instant application was partially filed. As such, even if the instant application was partially filed, the Plaintiff did not intend to deceive the Defendant, and as such, it does not necessarily need to be connected to the instant project, it is unlawful to consider the instant application in light of its business, and ② the money constructed on the instant land as to the treatment of livestock excreta.