건축용도변경허가신청불허가처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiffs are co-owners of the 3,144 square meters and E large 350 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “C”) in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and the 6-dong unit (hereinafter referred to as “instant 6-dong” and the instant 1-dong unit (hereinafter referred to as “instant 6-dong,” and indicated the instant 1-dong unit in the way of “instant 1-dong”).
On July 18, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed an application for permission to construct (change of the purpose of use) with the content that the instant detached house B, C, and B, were changed from a detached house to a lodging facility.
(hereinafter “instant application”). On July 24, 2014, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiffs to supplement the permission to occupy and use a road on July 24, 2014, and the Plaintiffs completed supplementation on July 29, 2014.
On September 26, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiffs’ instant application pursuant to Article 11(4)1 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the instant application is inappropriate when considering its surrounding environment, such as educational environment, as a result of the deliberation by the Building Committee,” on the ground that “the instant application is inappropriate.”
The Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission on December 26, 2014, but the said claim was dismissed on February 24, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 13 (including the number number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the argument in this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition in this case, and the alteration of the plaintiffs' use of the alleged building should be permitted unless it is necessary for other public interests.
The Plaintiffs continued to use the instant detached house B, C, B, and B, and B, from the construction in 2009, as a family-unit accommodation, i.e., penta., a family accommodation, and the application of this case is limited to the use entered in the public register so as to be consistent with the actual purpose of the application.