beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.09.13 2016구합5581

국가지정문화재 현상변경 허가신청 거부처분 취소 청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. C is located at the east end of Jeju-do as an volcanic island consisting of several sections, and “B” is formed according to the public waters adjacent to the branch line of several parcels, such as Jeju-si, the west area of the said island.

B The sea divers formed by red dyphering in the form of a dypheroid (the red dypher is a kind of seaweeds, which is a person in the form of a dyphere in cells or cell walls, and is known to be red dyphere if the red dyphere dyphere dyphere dyphere dyphere dyphere dyphere dyphere dyphere dyphere dyphere dyphere e.

(hereinafter “instant cultural heritage”). (b)

The Plaintiff, from September 201 to September 201, leased a Class II neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) on the ground leveled below 331 square meters (including the instant cultural heritage and the instant cultural heritage, which are located at a place less than 10 meters away, and the coast road is installed) in Jeju-si, Jeju-si, an area adjacent to the instant cultural heritage, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on March 25, 201 after purchasing the relevant building and site.

C. Around July 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the alteration of the current state of State-designated cultural heritage with a total floor area of 52.05 square meters from 52.05 square meters to 129.15 square meters, and with a height of 4.38 to 5.60 meters. However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s above application based on the result of deliberation by the Cultural Heritage Committee (a natural monument) under the purport that “the extension of the restaurant of this case may affect B’s surrounding topographical change and surrounding landscape.”

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, and Eul Evidence No. 1 (including evidence number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that of this case.