logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.11.08 2017구합2887
건축허가 취소처분 취소청구
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 17, 2012, Plaintiff A constructed a detached house (multi-household-19 households; hereinafter “first house”) with a total floor area of 546.7 square meters on the ground of 757 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and Plaintiff B obtained a construction permit from the Defendant on September 3, 2012, to construct a detached house (multi-household-13 households; hereinafter “second house”) with a total floor area of 387.09 square meters on the ground (hereinafter “instant site”) with a total floor area of 387.09 square meters on the ground (hereinafter “the instant building site”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff A’s building permit as of August 17, 2012 and the building permit as of September 3, 2012 from Plaintiff B, each of which was granted the construction permit as of September 14, 2014 and each of the following Plaintiff A’s construction permit as of September 3, 2012.

B. In the process of “construction site safety and pedestrian environment inspection”, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiffs did not commence construction until the time, and on October 5, 2016, notified the Plaintiffs to the effect that the instant construction permit should be revoked because they did not commence within one year after the construction permit was granted pursuant to Article 11(7) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 14535, Jan. 17, 2017; hereinafter “former Building Act”). As such, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs to the effect that the Plaintiffs “the delivery of their opinions thereon by October 21, 2016,” and the Plaintiffs will start new construction work around September 19, 2016.

(3) Around December 2016, the Defendant: (a) conducted an inspection of a building without obtaining approval for use; (b) confirmed the fact that the Plaintiffs still did not commence construction; and (c) notified again on January 10, 2017 that “the instant construction permission is to be revoked because each construction permit was not commenced within one year after the building permit was granted; and (c) issued a prior notice to the effect that “the Plaintiff will submit the opinion by January 31, 2017; and (d) submitted the previous written opinion to the Plaintiffs on October 19, 2016.” On February 22, 2017, the Defendant substituted the Plaintiff’s opinion.

arrow