Gangnam-gu (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Msan Market

on July 22, 1979

The revocation of the building permit (No. 1205) granted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on December 24, 1979 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. In full view of the evidence No. 1 (written permission), evidence No. 2 (written notification of cancellation), evidence No. 3 (written notification of provisional disposition), evidence No. 4 (written objection), evidence No. 9-1, 2 (each photograph), evidence No. 1-1 through 3 (written application for building permission, notification, etc.), evidence No. 2-1 through 3 (written instructions, instructions, etc.) of the same evidence No. 2-2, evidence No. 3 of the same No. 4 (written instructions, etc.), and evidence No. 4 of the same evidence No. 1 (written instructions, etc.) for which the Plaintiff had not reported the commencement of construction work more than 1205, 1978, and the Plaintiff had not reported the commencement of construction work more than 1,000 square meters of the building No. 41,970 square meters of the building on July 24, 1978, and the Plaintiff had not reported the commencement of construction work more than 1,2005 square meters of the building permit No. 147.1,8444.7.

2. Determination on the main safety defense of Defendant Litigation Performers

The defendant litigation performer raised an objection against the defendant on January 23, 1980 in the form that the cancellation disposition of construction permit was served on or before the plaintiff on or before January 16, 1980, but the plaintiff raised an objection against the defendant in the form that the cancellation request of permission was made on or before January 23, 1980, but this is not a source of lawsuit under the law of lawsuit and the Administrative Litigation Act, and the director of the plaintiff on February 22, 1980 submitted after the filing period of the lawsuit under Article 3 of the plaintiff's lawsuit law, and thus, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as it is unlawful without due cause

In full view of the arguments in Gap evidence 6 (request for withdrawal), Gap evidence 7 (written evidence), Eul evidence 8 (written evidence), Eul evidence 6 (written document delivery ledger), Eul evidence 7-1, 2 (written evidence 7-1, 8 (written evidence), 9-1, 2 (written evidence 9-1, 10, 11-1, 2 (written ruling), and 2 (written ruling) each of the statements in Gap evidence 6 (written evidence 7), 8 (written document delivery ledger), Eul evidence 7-1, 6 (written document delivery ledger), 7-1, 7-2 (written evidence 7), 7-1, 7-2 (written evidence 1979), the plaintiff notified the plaintiff of the revocation of construction permit and received it from the plaintiff on December 24, 1979, the plaintiff did not notify the plaintiff of the revocation of the construction permit and notified the defendant of the withdrawal of the complaint to the defendant on January 23, 1980.

According to Article 2(1) of the Costs of Lawsuit Act, a plaintiff has filed a suit to a superior administrative agency via the disposition administrative agency, and according to Article 3(2) of the same Act, if the submission agency is wrong or defective in the form of the president, the plaintiff shall transfer the plaintiff to the legitimate submission agency or return the plaintiff to the cause of the suit by determining the period for correction. Therefore, as long as the plaintiff's request for withdrawal is filed in any form, regardless of the head of the lawsuit filed later, the defendant shall receive it and send it to the Gyeongnam-do branch office, which is the ruling authority, regardless of the head of the lawsuit filed later. Thus, the defendant shall receive it and then send it to the Gyeongnam-do branch office, which is the ruling authority, and there is no particular effect and no decision on the plaintiff.

However, the plaintiff's objection is based on the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act (the time two months have elapsed from the date on which the plaintiff's objection was raised) and at the time of the lawsuit, two months have not passed since the request for withdrawal was made, but if based on the time of the closing of argument in this case, the defect is cured. Thus, it is also valid as it goes through lawful procedures for charging a lawsuit. Thus, the defense of the defendant's litigation performer is groundless.

3. Determination on the merits

Article 42 (1) 4 of the Building Act provides that the permission may be revoked if the permission is not commenced or completed within one year from the date of permission, and the permission may be revoked by the competent administrative agency. Thus, the right to enjoy permission is deprived of or restricted to the people, so it does not grant the right to enjoy the permission to the administrative agency, and it is a provision belonging to the scope of the speed discretion.

Therefore, when the Defendant cancels the building permit, it should be necessary for the public interest to cancel the building permit even more favorable than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff, who is the permitting authority, would have to do so. The Plaintiff’s so-called is not simply a formal reason for violating Article 42(1)4 of the Building Act, and there is no other substantial reason. Rather, in full view of the above-mentioned evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9-2, and evidence No. 9-2, and evidence No. 10 (Settlement Protocol) without dispute over the establishment, the Plaintiff’s application for a provisional disposition for new construction permit No. 2,846 square meters or less, should be made firmly on the rooftop of the building, and the Plaintiff purchased construction materials in accordance with the building permit No. 42(1)4, and then the Plaintiff’s application for a provisional disposition for new construction permit for new construction permit for new construction permit for new construction permit for new construction permit for new construction permit for new construction permit for new construction permit for new construction permit for new construction permit for new construction permit for new construction permit for new construction permit for new construction.

Therefore, the defendant's revocation of a building permit immediately on the ground of the above violation of the Building Act constitutes an abuse of discretionary authority. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the above revocation is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

August 19, 1980

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge) Maximum of Kim Young-il