장기미집행도시계획시설결정해제입안신청 거부처분 취소
1. On April 9, 2019, the Defendant filed an application for the cancellation of the determination of the long-term undeveloped urban planning facilities with respect to the Plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Forest Land 2,150 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) (Plaintiff A owns 6/10 shares, Plaintiff B and C own 2/10 shares, respectively), and the Defendant is delegated by the administrative agency with the authority of the Seoul Metropolitan Government concerning the formulation of urban planning facilities (excluding construction of railroads and tracks) and the handling of residents’ proposals for the formulation thereof pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Urban Planning.
B. On July 14, 197, the Minister of Construction and Transportation, as a public notice E on July 14, 197, the area at the time of the first determination of urban planning facilities of 254,648 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, including the instant land, was 251,500 square meters, but the area was changed thereafter. The area was determined and publicly notified as a park (hereinafter “instant urban planning facilities determination”).
C. On March 8, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for the cancellation of the determination of the long-term unexecution urban planning facilities seeking the cancellation of the determination of the instant urban planning facilities pursuant to Article 48-2(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) on the ground that the instant Park Creation Project was not implemented with respect to the instant land.
On April 9, 2017, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiffs that “The instant land does not fall under the subject of the application for the cancellation of the determination of urban planning facilities pursuant to Article 48-2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Although 10 years have passed since the public notice of the determination of the instant urban planning facility was made, the Plaintiffs’ assertion was made.