1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for adding “the defendant in an agricultural and forest area” to “the defendant in the second part of the judgment of the first instance.” Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's claim 1) The plaintiff's application of this case does not have any grounds to limit the relevant laws such as the Building Act, and since there is no reason contrary to the relevant laws and regulations, the defendant must grant a building permit as a matter of course. 2) The defendant did not demand the installation of facilities for preventing dust and malodor as in this case at the time of the building permit for mooring on the land of Pyeongtaek-si and Pyeongtaek-si D, but in the case of the application of this case, the plaintiff's supplementary documents are insufficient after additionally demanding the installation of facilities for preventing dust and malodor. The disposition of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. 1) As to the first argument, a building permit holder shall grant a building permit under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, unless the application for a building permit is in conflict with any restriction prescribed by the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, including the Building Act. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no need for significant public interest, permission for a person meeting the requirements may not be denied on the grounds other than the grounds for restriction prescribed by the relevant Act and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du8946, Sept. 24, 2009). Meanwhile, the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 13681, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter “former National Land Planning Act”).

(1) According to Article 56(1) of the Act and Article 51(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree thereof (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26721, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act”), Article 56(1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 13471, Aug. 11, 2015).