건축허가신청불가처리취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including costs incurred by participation in the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance is written as follows, except for the addition of "decision on the plaintiff's argument" in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
o Article 20 of the 7th judgment of the first instance court is that “The above case is still pending in the final appeal court as of November 27, 2014,” and Article 20 of the 7th judgment of the first instance court is that “K et al. appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2013Da207606, Nov. 27, 2014.”
o. As a result, the part between the 8 line and 11 line in the judgment of the court of first instance was subject to a summary order of KRW 3 million in the Suwon District Court Decision 2012 High and 474, which was sentenced to a fine of KRW 200,000,000,000. On September 12, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an application for formal trial with the said court under the above court’s order of suspension of sentence of KRW 1 million. The prosecutor appealed against the above judgment on October 8, 2013 and filed an appeal on October 16, 2014, the judgment became final and conclusive on December 19, 2014. < Amended by Act No. 12844, Oct. 16, 2014>
The Local Tax Act of 17 pages 12 is referred to as "Article 7 (2) of the Local Tax Act".
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 13-3(2) of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act, which first applies to Article 13-3(2) of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 7678 of Aug. 4, 2005, hereinafter “Industrial Cluster Development Act”), provides special exceptions to restrictions on development activities in specific-use area and district under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”). As long as the Plaintiff obtained approval of factory construction under the Industrial Cluster Development Act, the factory building directly related to approval of factory construction regardless of the alteration of specific-use area and district according to the designation of the logistics complex.