공사시행(변경)인가 거부(불가)처분 취소청구
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in the court of first instance in this case, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff violated the terms and conditions of approving the execution of the construction work, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay the land compensation, etc. at the time of leisure.”
However, since the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the above land compensation is responsible for the Defendant or the leisure market as follows, the instant disposition is unlawful.
1) As the Defendant changed the execution of construction on December 10, 2015, on January 29, 2016, the leisure market was informed of the deposit account at the time of requesting the Plaintiff to pay land compensation, etc., and the deposit deadline was erroneously stated as of January 22, 2016.
Due to these mistakes, investors' trust was broken and investments were not made, and the Plaintiff failed to pay land compensation, etc. within the deadline.
2) On December 12, 2017, the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request for the extension of the project period of the instant case, extended the processing period for an application for the extension of the construction implementation authorization by January 10, 2018, issued the instant disposition of refusal on January 4, 2018, within the said period, and the Plaintiff rejected the receipt of the current market price even though the Plaintiff, on January 5, 2018, issued the instant disposition of refusal on January 4, 2018.
3) On the Plaintiff’s objection against the instant refusal disposition, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that the Plaintiff did not deposit the land compensation, etc. by March 30, 2018 in accordance with the said written opinion, even though the Plaintiff did not submit a written opinion to the effect that “the Plaintiff would completely pay the land compensation, etc. by March 30, 2018.”
4) The Central Administrative Appeals Commission's administrative rulings against the instant rejection disposition.