1. The Defendant’s disposition of rejecting an application for building permit filed against the Plaintiff on August 24, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Details of the disposition

On June 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit on the ground “Seoul Mapo-gu B large 126 square meters” (hereinafter “instant land”). However, on June 27, 2018, the Defendant requested the Defendant to supplement the application for the withdrawal of the construction line at the corner of the road, etc., and requested the Defendant to supplement on July 9, 2018.

On August 24, 2018, the relevant site does not fall under the roads publicly notified for new construction or alteration pursuant to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the Road Act, the Private Road Act, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and at the time of building permission, the building line should be designated by connecting two points set back from the crossing point of the road according to the road boundary line, respectively, in accordance with Article 46 of the Building Act and Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, with the land subject to the designation of the building line by the permitting authority. On August 24, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to reject an application for building permission against the Plaintiff on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “instant disposition.” The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on February 25, 2019.

[Grounds for recognition] The instant disposition is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of the entire pleadings and the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

In order to designate the building line as a branch of a road set back a certain distance on a road, other than the boundary between the site and the road, pursuant to Article 46 (1) of the relevant Building Act, which is not subject to the designation of the building line at the corner of a road, the width of the crossing road shall not exceed eight meters.

However, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition on the ground that the crossing road was not less than eight meters in width based on the minimum width, not the intersecting point of the road of this case, which is an intersection, and the intersection point of the road of this case is crossing the width of the road of this case.