건축허가신청반려처분취소
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 January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a construction report in the form of complex civil petition, including an application for permission to engage in development activities, an application for permission to divert farmland, and an application for permission to occupy and use a road, to construct Class I neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) on the first floor with a total floor area of 196.96 square meters on the land in Jinju-si, B (hereinafter “instant application site”).
The farmland in the area is likely to be destroyed due to the diversion of the farmland concerned, including farmland in the area where the project for improving agricultural production infrastructure, such as the ground for non-consultation on farmland diversion (Article 33(1)4(a), (b), (c), and (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act), arable land rearrangement and repair facilities, is implemented.
B. On January 23, 2015, the Defendant held a comprehensive council for processing complex civil petitions, and rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff to return the Plaintiff’s report on construction for the following reasons.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is designated as a "production control area" under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter "National Land Planning Act"). According to Article 71 (1) 18 and attached Table 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the first-class neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) that the plaintiff intends to build at the site of the application of this case constitutes a building that can be constructed within the production control area. Since the plaintiff plans to operate fertilizer stores in the building of this case, it is possible to provide convenience to nearby farmers in the site of this case where the plaintiff's fertilizer is currently used. The adjacent area of the application of this case may pollute surrounding environment by noise and waste, etc.