beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
On December 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit (hereinafter “instant application”) with a view to constructing a multi-family house (four stories on the ground and a total floor area of 507 square meters) on the ground of the Dong-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant application site”).
Supplementary matters - Defense on the plot of land, height difference marking - Securing two marks on the actual condition of the building site inside and outside the site and the roads below the required width (the ground for Disposition 1) (the ground for Disposition 2) - The ground for the building permit investigation and inspection report (the site for Disposition 2) - the ground for the floor plan and structural confirmation before and after the expansion of balcony parts in multi-household housing - The defendant, on January 11, 2016, stated the passage inside and outside the site of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) on the premise that the passage inside and outside the site of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant ground for Disposition 1”) is a road under the Building Act and secured the required width (hereinafter referred to as “the ground for Disposition 1”) and on the road status inspection report on D.353 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land”) and on D. 253 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the ground for Disposition 2”), did not return each of the instant grounds for Disposition 2.
[Ground of recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and the purport of the entire pleading, new argument by the plaintiff is established as to whether the disposition of the whole pleadings is legitimate, and the owners around the place of application of this case need not use the land of this case any longer. Even if the building of this case is constructed, the ground of disposition No. 1 is unlawful in light of the fact that the sewerage does not affect any other way
Land 1 shall be a passage through which pedestrians can pass along and neighboring residents for a long time.