logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.01.25 2017노5901
국토의계획및이용에관한법률위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) was found to have filled up the 6,476 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) out of 33,926 square meters (hereinafter “the entire land of this case”) in collusion by the Defendants in order to maintain C in friendliness, but the instant land continues to maintain the form and quality of “maintenance” as in the existing land. As such, the said banking act cannot be deemed to be subject to permission for development acts under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

2. Defendant B argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below. As to this, the court below found Defendant B guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the land category and status were “maintenance” but the Defendants’ act was no longer difficult to use as “maintenance” due to the Defendants’ act of raising land category. Thus, even if the height of the part filled up on the land of this case does not exceed 50 cm, even if the Defendants’ assertion is based on the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant B filled up the land of this case to cultivate in the land of this case, and this constitutes a change in the form and quality of the land resulting from the change of land category.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendants’ act constitutes an act of raising earth, resulting in a change of land category and constitutes an act of changing the form and quality of land subject to permission under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which is subject to development acts under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts as alleged by the defendants.

① The Defendants were involved in the instant case in a non-science manner using posters only at the competent authorities or surveying companies.

arrow