logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.07.05 2018누37900
개발제한구역내 행위불허가 처분 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s additional assertion by the appellate court under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

The part used or added shall be deleted on the 11th page 18-20 "(the plaintiff can, as the plaintiff, file an application for permission for acts by meeting the requirements for neighborhood living facilities under subparagraph 5 (d) of the above [Attachment 1]. However, there is no data to deem that the above requirements are met in this case)."

Part 12, "the construction permission of this case" in Part 14 shall be "the initial construction permission of this case".

[Attachment] Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be added to this Court (attached Form).

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional argument

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, even if the Plaintiff’s application for permission of this case did not meet the requirements under Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] 5(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act, if it is deemed that the application for permission of this case was related to the construction of a neighborhood living facility (general restaurant), the Plaintiff had already resided in the development restriction zone for at least ten years, and thus, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff met the requirements of “resident for at least five years” on the land of this case pursuant to Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] 5(d)(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act, and the disposition of this case is unlawful. (b) The relevant legal doctrine was delegated by Article 12(1)1(e) of the Development Restriction Zone Act, and Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for “facilities that can build a neighborhood living facility within the development restriction zone,” and in principle, the land category and land category from the time of the development restriction zone.

arrow