건축불허가처분취소
1. The Defendant’s provisional disposition of denial of construction against the Plaintiff on July 16, 2014 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a construction permit in the form of complex civil petition containing an application for farmland conversion and alteration of the form and quality (hereinafter “instant application”) with the aim of newly constructing one-story storage facilities (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) on the ground of the building area and the total floor area of 98.40 square meters on the ground of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1,084 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”).
B. On July 16, 2014, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for a building permit on the following grounds:
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). ① Development activities in a development-restricted zone should be granted selectively in consideration of the inevitability and urgency, and the construction of the warehouse in this case is not inevitable and urgent.
(2) Article 34 (2) 2 of the Farmland Act, and Article 12 (1) (proviso) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter referred to as "Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones") are not appropriate for any condition to change the form
③ In preparation for the Plaintiff’s current state of agricultural management, production of agricultural products, and shipment performance, the realization of the exclusive purpose is uncertain, and the area of the farmland to be diverted is excessively larger than that needed for realizing the exclusive purpose (the storage of agricultural products directly produced) (On the other hand, the disposal protocol on the grounds for the disposal of this portion is clearly stated in Article 27(2)3 and 4 of the Farmland Act, but it is apparent that it is a clerical error under Article 37(2)4 and 5 of the Farmland Act.
On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 10, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 4-1 to 11, Gap evidence 5-1 to 8, Gap evidence 9, and Gap.