개발행위허가신청불허가처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 25, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained a license for a liquefied petroleum gas filling business with the following content from the Jeonju market:
The name of the permitted number business entity shall be the location, scope, and type of the subject matter of the name of the business entity, and specifications B C Ap charging station D, E, F, G car container charging 30 tons of the B220 tons of the BP (the underground burial type)
B. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development of form and quality of land (hereinafter “instant application”) with respect to the construction of a new site for storage and disposal facilities of dangerous substances in accordance with the permission for the said liquefied petroleum gas filling business, and filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development of form and quality of land (hereinafter “instant application”). For the purpose of securing access roads to the construction site for the said facilities, the area occupied and used for the said facilities shall be deemed as “Seoul-gu, Seojin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and 585 square meters,” and the type and route name of the road shall be deemed as “general national highway 17 lines.”
In addition, at the time of the application of this case, the Plaintiff passed through the site below the application of this case and tried to set up an excellent treatment system by extending the crossing car installed in the same direction.
C. On November 3, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission on the instant application to the Plaintiff on the ground that the occupation and use of the road and the reclamation of crossing car is not possible.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
Accordingly, on December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the instant disposition against the Defendant, but the Defendant respondeded to the Plaintiff that permission was not granted on December 12, 2014. On December 24, 2014, the Plaintiff responded again to the Plaintiff that the occupancy and use of the instant site for storing and treating dangerous substances and the reclamation of cross-road rocks is impossible on the instant site for the following reasons.
Since cross-road reclamation is necessary for the complex maintenance of the function of cross-road parking, the case of cross-road parking is to be reviewed, and it is related to whether it is possible to use the road (road access road).