건축허가(복합민원)불허처분취소청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff’s new argument in the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On May 12, 2017, immediately after the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s assertion that added the Plaintiff secured another access route leading to the instant stable site by purchasing H field 750 square meters between the instant stable site and the 2,285 square meters wide between the 2,285 square meters wide, Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and thereby securing another access route leading to the instant stable site. As such, it was unnecessary to obtain approval for the use of the instant land for the purpose other than
Therefore, the instant disposition, which was based on the ground that entry into the instant stable site was not secured, was unlawful.
Judgment
The illegality of administrative disposition in administrative litigation shall be determined on the basis of the law and fact state at the time of administrative disposition, and it shall not be affected by the amendment or repeal of the law or changes in the state of fact after the disposition.
(1) In light of the above legal principles, the disposition of this case, which was lawful at the time of the disposition, is not unlawful, even if the plaintiff's assertion was based on the plaintiff's assertion, is not nonexistent at the time of the disposition of this case, and the plaintiff resolved the above reasons after the disposition of this case. The disposition of this case is lawful when it is determined based on the actual state at the time of the disposition of this case, and even if there was a change in the actual state as alleged by the plaintiff after the disposition of this case, the disposition of this case, which was lawful at the time of the disposition, is not unlawful again.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.