beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance as to the argument of the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition under paragraph (2) below; and (b) the same shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2)
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant asserts that the permission to occupy and use the road of this case was lawful in view of the fact that the period of permission to occupy and use the road of this case is anticipated not to be extended in the future considering the fact that it is anticipated not to extend the period of permission to occupy and use the road of this case as well as the need to use it for public services for local residents and residents, etc. when the building of this case is changed to use the road of this case as a funeral hall for the public interest, such as revitalization of local tourism and convenience for tourist hotel users, etc. However, it is anticipated that it would be difficult for neighboring residents to suffer from heavy traffic congestion and infringement of residential life, etc.
On the other hand, the issue of whether an administrative disposition is illegal in an administrative disposition shall be determined based on the relevant law and fact-finding at the time of the administrative disposition, and it shall not be affected by the amendment or repeal of the relevant law or changes in the actual state after the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu1903, May 27, 1993; 2007Du1811, May 11, 2007); and the building permit holder shall grant a building permit under the relevant law as a matter of course unless the application for a building permit does not violate any restrictions prescribed by the relevant law, such as the Building Act, and even though there is no need for a significant public interest, it shall not be denied for reasons other than the grounds for restriction prescribed by the relevant law.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu3038 delivered on December 11, 1992; 2006Du1227 delivered on November 9, 2006, etc.).