logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.29 2017구합63093
건축허가취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Upon receipt of an application for a building permit under the name of the Plaintiff, the Defendant permitted the construction of a Class I neighborhood living facility (village work site) on the ground of the land owned by C, the father of which is a development restriction zone, under Article 12 of the former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (Amended by Act No. 13670, Dec. 29, 2015) on June 19, 2014 (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant building permit,” and the said building is referred to as the “instant building”). B.

The Defendant approved the use of the instant building on March 24, 2015 upon receiving an application for approval of the use of the Plaintiff’s name.

Since then, registration of preservation of ownership has been made on the instant building in the future.

C. Meanwhile, in the instant building permit, E, who was an architect assistant belonging to the designer’s office, was sentenced to one year of imprisonment on March 19, 2015, for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff’s representative F; (b) the Plaintiff’s son C, who was a son of the instant landowner; and (c) the crime of obstruction of the performance of deceptive scheme committed in collusion with C; and (d) the crime of violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, etc.; (b) on the grounds of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of the appeal, the Suwon District Court was sentenced to one year of suspended sentence on May 29, 2015, and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for one year of imprisonment. The said appellate judgment became final and conclusive as is.

In addition, the defendant is also a person working as an architect assistant at the GArchitect Office.

The defendant is unable to obtain a building permit for the use of a private workplace or factory within a development-restricted area, but with the fact that he/she may obtain a building permit for the use of a common facility for village residents, he/she shall prepare a false document in return for the use of a warehouse from those who intend to construct a warehouse and prepare a false document.

arrow