건축허가신청반려처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 9, 1965, prior to the designation of the instant land as a development-restricted area, the instant land was constructed on the ground of the lower land and the total floor area of 59.24 square meters on the ground (hereinafter “instant housing”).
The instant land was 11,436 square meters of C forest land in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the division of the instant land was made on May 6, 2002, and the instant land was divided into the said forest land as a result of registration conversion and division. The land category was changed to “site” on the same day.
B. After the destruction of the instant housing, the building ledger of the instant housing was revoked on July 30, 2008, and the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit with the Defendant on February 22, 2018 to newly construct a detached house on the instant land, which is a site.
C. On March 28, 2018, the Defendant rejected an application for a building permit from the Plaintiff on the ground that “this case’s land is within a development restriction zone and a detached house is newly built pursuant to Article 13(1) [Attachment Table 1] [Attachment Table 5(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones”) and there was a land category as a building site from the time of designation of a development restriction zone and an existing house located at the time of designation of a development restriction zone. The land category of this case’s land was changed on May 6, 2002, which was after the designation of a large area or a development restriction zone, and the instant housing was disposed of after cancellation on July 30, 2008 and still remains, and thus, it is impossible to construct a detached house under the Development Restriction Zones Act”
(i) [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a land that can be newly built with permission within a development-restricted zone.