logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.18 2016구합34
하천부지점용불허가처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to occupy and use a river with the purpose of occupying a part of C river of 267,840 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”) located within a size of 6,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant application”). The Plaintiff filed an application for permission to occupy and use a river with the term “environmental parking lot installation and mountain village cultivation” and “from September 15, 2015 to September 14, 2025” (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. On September 23, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of non-permission on the application to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the permission to occupy and use a river for cultivation goes against the standards for occupation and use as state-owned and public land, and the river management is in principle used for the purpose of public interest, and only the facilities suitable for the Public Health Act and the lodging facilities may be installed as it is designated in the D Tourist Site creation plan as a lodging facility district, and the permission to occupy and use the river and the related Acts and subordinate statutes and the public interest may not be permitted.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On November 30, 2015, the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission filed a petition for a trial on revocation of the permission to occupy and use a river site, and on November 30, 2015, the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission (Seoul Metropolitan Government Administrative Appeals Commission) filed a petition with the Plaintiff for a trial on revocation of permission to occupy and use a river site. However, in order to obtain permission to occupy and use a river for the purpose of farming, the Plaintiff did not have already obtained permission to occupy and use the river site in this case, and the plan to improve the system of permission to occupy and use a river land determined through consultation with the relevant government agencies in 207 is prohibited in accordance with the detailed criteria for permission to occupy and use a river site. The filing of the petition in this case

arrow