부작위 위법확인 등 청구
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 2003, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for development activities (hereinafter “application 1”) with the Defendant with the content that the retention period is up to May 31, 2006, with the content that the Plaintiff would establish a bean cultivation shed of the total floor area of 156 square meters on the ground of 782 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
However, on July 15, 2003, the Defendant rejected the first application from the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant land is a site for a sports facility installation plan under the 3-stage basic urban planning plan in Seongbuk-si, 2016 and is under review of validity (hereinafter “pre-determination disposition”).
B. Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the preceding return disposition in this court, the first instance court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on June 13, 2007 (U.S. District Court 2003Guhap4585). On July 20, 2005, the appellate court, upon the Plaintiff’s appeal, excluded the installation plan of sports facilities on the instant land, etc. from the Sungnam Basic Urban Planning. Of the above lawsuit, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s additional farmland and difficult development belongs to the superior farmland where the preservation of the instant land is necessary. As a temporary building that can be installed within the agriculture promotion zone, the bean cultivation company rendered a favorable judgment in favor of the Plaintiff revoking the preceding return disposition on August 9, 2005 (Seoul High Court 2004Nu16586) by appropriately exercising permission for development activities in the future (Seoul High Court 2004Nu16586), it became final and conclusive on August 9, 2005.
(hereinafter “final judgment of this case”). C.
On August 11, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission for development activities (hereinafter “second application”) with the same content as the first application, together with the report on the construction of a temporary building for constructing a plastic bean crop cultivation company, and the report on the report on the diversion of farmland.
However, the defendant on October 7, 2005 of this case.