1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

A. On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for construction permission (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant to newly build an automobile-related facility of one story on the ground of 4,937 square meters in Ulsan-gun B (hereinafter “the instant application site”) and of 1,414 square meters in a building area (a ju-gun; hereinafter “the ju-gun”), which includes the legal fiction of permission for development and the legal fiction of permission for diversion of farmland (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. After deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee, the Defendant rejected the instant application on March 11, 2015 for the following reasons.

(hereinafter “Disposition”). The filing of the instant application is likely to impair the surrounding natural landscape and aesthetic view of the rural village due to the deterioration with the existing environment at the entrance of the village, and is likely to cause environmental pollution, damage, etc. in the area and surrounding areas due to water pollution, noise, dust, etc.

It is judged that it does not meet the criteria for permission for development activities, such as the collective civil petition of village residents opposing the construction of scrapped area.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on July 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s right to claim construction permit should, in principle, grant a construction permit unless the application does not fall under the grounds for restrictions prescribed by the relevant statutes. In full view of the following, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful, taking account of the following: (a) there is no problem in the relevant statutes in the construction of a scrapping site in the application site; (b) the Defendant’s denial of only the application of this case is going against equity because the factory, etc. was already in operation around the application site; (c) there is no citizen around the application site;

B. Attached to the relevant statutes (hereinafter “related statutes”).