beta
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. The land is a neighboring land connected in the order of D, E, F, and G forests, the specific use area of which under the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 11922, Jul. 16, 2013; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) is located in a planned control area, and is located in a land, the specific use area of which under the former Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 11922, Jul. 16, 2013; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) is located in a planned control area.
On the other hand, D Forest, E, and F Forest are all divided in sequence from H forest.
B. On the part of each of the instant forests, Plaintiff B filed an application for construction permission as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “each of the instant applications”) with the Defendant on November 11, 2013, in order to newly construct one Class II neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants) on the part of the F forest land, and on the part of the F forest land, the Plaintiff filed an application for construction permission as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “each of the instant applications
Plaintiff
B The highest height of 11.20m. 11.20m. 20m. 352m. 641.06m. 641.72m. 641.06m. with a total floor area of 352m. 352m. 87m2,000,000,000 1,931m2,000,000 m. for each forest land located in the Plaintiff A’s site location
C. On November 27, 2013, the Defendant rejected each of the instant applications from the Plaintiffs on the following grounds:
(2) Article 58(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act applies mutatis mutandis to the following grounds for non-permission: