월산1지구 도시개발구역 지정 추진 철회처분 취소청구
1. The plaintiff A Urban Development Project Establishment Promotion Committee's lawsuit shall be dismissed;
2. The plaintiff B's claim is dismissed.
3.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 16, 2010, Plaintiff B made a proposal for the designation of an urban development zone with the consent of 157 owners of land (314) that constitutes 67.5% of the relevant land area with respect to the land area of KRW 480,285 square meters (hereinafter “development-related zone”) in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Seoul. On May 18, 201, the Defendant accepted the said proposal to Plaintiff B and notified the Defendant that it would implement administrative procedures for designating an urban development zone and formulating a development plan.
Plaintiff
B owns 33/2,876 of the D 2,876 square meters of land within the development area.
B. On May 24, 2012, the Defendant deliberated by the Urban Planning Committee on May 24, 2012 regarding the construction of the designation of the said urban development zone. The Urban Planning Committee resolved on the deliberation of the following: (a) the soundproof tunnel plan for the south National Highway of the development zone 46 line; (b) the plan for the accommodation of middle students; (c) the impact on the passage of the outer cycle route and the road and the tunnel portion; (d) the average land ratio of the replotting method; (e) the internal and external cost ratio of the area;
Accordingly, the defendant ordered several times to supplement each of the above matters, but the plaintiff B did not comply with the extension of the deadline for supplementation.
C. By April 30, 2014, the Defendant submitted a soundproof tunnel plan, a analysis of impacts on the second external cycle, a supplementary document on the river land use plan, and a request for withdrawal by about 42% of the area of the area to be developed, the Defendant made a request for supplementation to submit documents on the landowner’s consent (hereinafter “instant request for supplementation”). On May 1, 2016, the Plaintiff did not supplement the date of supplementation by the deadline for supplementation, and again requested supplementation of the same content as of May 16, 2014.
Accordingly, the plaintiff B requires a considerable period of time to prepare supplementary documents.