건축허가 불가처분 취소 청구의 소
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 22, 1998, the Plaintiff constructed an animal and plant-related facility (a livestock shed) with 1,900 square meters (1,216 square meters and 684 square meters per non-standard 1 Dong, Dong, 1,216 square meters) on the ground on the ground of Yasan-si B (hereinafter “the instant application site”) and operated the said livestock shed with the trade name.
B. On January 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit to the effect that he/she will re-new a stable with the same area after removing one thousand and two hundred thousand square meters per annum from the said stable (hereinafter “instant application”).
C. On March 9, 2017, the Defendant issued a provisional disposition on the ground that “The height is only increased without an increase in the stable area after the removal of an existing building, and it shall not be considered as a reconstruction or reconstruction without an increase in the stable area under Article 4(2)6 of the Ordinance on the Restriction on Livestock Raising in Ysan-si (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion of this case should be revoked on the following grounds that the defendant abused or abused discretion.
1. Article 4(2) of the Ordinance of this case provides that a new construction, extension, etc. of a stable may be permitted in cases where an existing stable is reconstructed or reconstructed without an increase in the area of a stable within a partially restricted area. Thus, in cases where the existing building is demolished and the height is increased without an increase in the area of a stable, it shall be allowed to be considered as reconstruction and reconstruction, and if not, there is no reason to place an exception to the permission by inserting the phrase “unexisting stable or without an increase in the area,” regardless of the definition of extension or remodeling stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act.
In addition, the plaintiff intends to construct a new stable for the business of modernization of livestock shed facilities.