logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.04.05 2017구합2436
개발행위허가반려처분 취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The height was changed to 6.6 meters after 253.75m2, 253m2, 253.75m2 from the 768m2 to the 6.6m206m2, 768m2, 768m2, 768m2, 768m2, 6.45m2, 768m2, 768m2, 768m2.

1) On August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) on August 3, 2016, the Defendant and the 4,994 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant application site”) outside B in Chungcheong City.

2) The Defendant filed an application for a building permit to reconstruct a site located in the Yang Do as follows into animal and plant-related facilities (a stable and compost), the total floor area of which is not more than 1,789.75m2 (hereinafter “instant building permit”). On the 19th of the same month, the Defendant issued a building permit (hereinafter “instant building permit”).

(2) On November 25, 2016, the Defendant issued an order for restitution pursuant to Article 60(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act on the ground that the Plaintiff, on the ground of the instant application site, was subject to permission for development activities under Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), but the Plaintiff was illegally constructed. On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff issued an order for restitution pursuant to Article 60(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act on the ground that the instant application site was changed without permission.

3. After January 20, 2017, the Defendant issued a suspension and corrective order for construction on the ground that the building under construction on the ground of the instant application site did not fall under “renovation” as prescribed by the Building Act, and the Plaintiff violated Article 11 of the Building Act, and that the structure of the main building was changed from the “rape structure,” which was first reported without filing an application for permission for change to the “general steel frame structure.”

B. The Plaintiff’s filing of administrative litigation and the Plaintiff’s past progress are as follows: (a) this Court issued 2017Guhap1181 on February 6, 2017.

arrow