logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.06.26 2018구합10298
개발행위변경허가신청반려처분취소 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) entered into a construction contract with C on August 2012, 2012, where the LAB entered into a new construction contract with C to build a neighborhood living facility on the 8,067 square meters of land owned by C (hereinafter “instant land”).

On October 19, 2012, “B” submitted to the Defendant a written consent for land use to use the pertinent land for access roads and drainage from the owner of the land corresponding to the access road to the instant land, and obtained permission from the Defendant for development activities for the purpose of site creation (hereinafter “instant development permission”) for Class 1, Class 2 neighborhood living facilities (retail stores, offices, manufacturing establishments), and the instant land (hereinafter “instant development permission”).

On the other hand, on February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the instant land in the voluntary auction procedure for the instant land owned by C.

On August 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities (hereinafter referred to as “instant application”). The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit “the plan to secure access roads, including written consent to use the access roads,” but did not comply with the request.

On November 3, 2017, the Defendant rejected the instant application on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for supplementation, such as “the submission of a plan to secure access roads, including written consent to use the access road by the person who has obtained permission at the beginning of the party, and submission of a

(hereinafter “instant disposition” (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the lawfulness of the instant disposition is based on the bid price of the instant land, and Article 135(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

arrow