건축허가신청불허가처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit that includes a permit for development and a permit for diversion of farmland (hereinafter “instant application”) on the ground of 2,163 square meters on the ground of 2,163 square meters of building area on the ground of 428.4 square meters of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On February 15, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application for the following reasons against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
As a result of consultation with the relevant department on the case of application for a building permit, since the above parcel is included in C Development Plan, it may cause property loss due to the removal of buildings, etc. when the construction of a building is in progress or after completion of the development of an industrial complex.
Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition, the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 25, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 3, Eul's 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant promoted the C development plan from September 2009, but the period of seven years thereafter is low in possibility of realizing the industrial complex development plan since it was not designated as a general industrial complex until seven years thereafter. In particular, it is difficult to expect that the instant land is located at the inside of the planned area of the industrial complex, and it is difficult to expect an end-user to appear. Thus, if the instant building is newly constructed on the instant land, there is little possibility to remove the building, and it is difficult to view that the damage
On the other hand, the plaintiff with the consent to use the land of this case for a long time due to the disposition of this case.