시정명령 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On August 4, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership by constructing a three-story building of steel reinforced concrete concrete roof (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground located within a development-restricted zone C, located within a development-restricted zone.
In the building ledger concerning the building of this case, the use of the part of the first floor is entered into the first-class neighborhood living facilities (retail stores), the use of the second floor into the second-class neighborhood living facilities (office), and the use of the third floor into the single house.
On August 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a business report (hereinafter “instant business report”) with the Defendant on the second floor of the instant building (area 165.44 square meters; hereinafter “the instant building”). On August 8, 2017, the Defendant accepted the instant business report on August 8, 2017.
Accordingly, D is running an ordinary restaurant business (hereinafter “instant business”) in the instant building section.
On February 19, 2018, the Defendant issued a corrective order to order the Plaintiff to remove and reinstate the instant building parts pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Development Restriction Zone Act on the ground that the instant building portion owned by the Plaintiff was illegally changed from Class II neighborhood living facilities (office) for its original purpose, in violation of Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”) and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zones Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 12, 14 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Defendant’s urban development and public official in charge in violation of the principle of protecting the Plaintiff’s 1 trust did not have any problem with regard to conducting an ordinary restaurant business on the instant building located in the development restriction zone with the Plaintiff and D.