Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Han-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Magyeong-gun

August 26, 2009

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Guhap5675 Decided November 26, 2008

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The defendant's application for approval of recovery design granted to the plaintiffs on June 7, 2007 is revoked.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

2. The parties' assertion

3. Relevant statutes;

This court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's reasoning is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

(a) Facts of recognition;

Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence No. 6-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 7-1, 2, 9-1 through 41, Eul evidence No. 10, 11-1 through 44, Eul evidence No. 12-1, 13-1 through 27, Eul evidence No. 14, and Eul No. 14-1 through 27, and Eul’s evidence No. 14-1 through 27, and Eul’s evidence No. 14-1 to 27, respectively, were submitted to the defendant on Oct. 1, 204 as well as the defendant’s notice of application for permission for conversion of a mountainous district (the plaintiffs’ notice of application for permission for conversion of a mountainous district No. 1, 204).

B. Determination

In light of the developments leading up to the disposition of Paragraph (1) above and the facts leading up to the recognition of Paragraph (1) above, the defendant submitted the aforementioned plan for the use of warehouses by the plaintiffs. In light of the circumstances that the defendant added the above conditions of permission to convert a mountainous district, the defendant permitted the creation of warehouse as the purpose of the conversion of a mountainous district, and the plaintiffs clearly recognized it as the purpose of the conversion of a mountainous district. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the purpose of the conversion of a mountainous district of this case was the creation of warehouse, and therefore, the disposition of this case which approved the plaintiffs' non-approval of the application for the permission for the conversion of a mountainous district is lawful on the grounds that the purpose of the conversion of a mountainous district was not completed.

Furthermore, as seen above, the defendant added the conditions of permission to the effect that the permission may be revoked in the event that a building, which is the object of conversion, is not constructed in the course of granting the permission of this case to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant has the right to revoke the permission of this case under Article 20 of the former Management of Mountainous Districts Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008) that stipulates that the permission of this case may be revoked in the event that a person who obtained the permission of mountainous district violates the conditions of permission of mountainous district conversion. The plaintiffs' application for approval of the restoration design of this case can be rejected as a matter of course in order to urge the implementation of the conditions of permission prior to the exercise of such authority, and the reasons for the disposition of this case are included in the above purport. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion is not acceptable even in this respect (the grounds for the permission of this case cited by the plaintiffs are different from this case, and it is inappropriate to

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so decided

Judges Cho Jae-hoon (Presiding Judge)