건축허가신청불허가처분취소
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 grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the parties' claims are examined by adding the evidence submitted to the court of first instance to the
In other words, the defendant's disposition of this case on the grounds of the necessity of preserving good farmland or concerns over environmental pollution cannot be deemed as an abuse of discretion in violation of the principle of proportionality, principle of equality, etc.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is added to the “National Land Planning and Utilization Act” (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) in the 5-6 table inside the 2nd page of the judgment of the court of first instance. In addition to supplementing the judgment of the plaintiff as to the plaintiff’s assertion, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to find out whether the building permit was granted prior to the instant application, to hear the answer of the Defendant’s public official in charge, and to purchase the instant application, and then to make the instant application. On the contrary, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is against the principle of trust protection.
B. In general, in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the act of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to the individual, second, the administrative agency's opinion that is justifiable and trusted to the trust of the individual should not be attributable to the individual, third, the individual should have trusted the opinion and had engaged in any act corresponding thereto, and fourth, the administrative agency made a disposition contrary to the opinion list, thereby trusting that opinion list.