beta
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. On April 10, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the establishment of a new factory (hereinafter “approval for the establishment of a new factory of this case”) from the Defendant on the ground of 29,894 square meters of factory site size (6,466 square meters in size, : 1,405 square meters in size: 1,405 square meters in size) on the ground of the gambreg 22 and 1 (hereinafter “instant site”).
B. According to the original design, on November 6, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for a new construction of a factory to extend the cut volume from 46,965 cubic meters to 150,427 cubic meters, on the ground that the gradient of the access road to the factory of this case is too high and it is difficult to access cargo vehicles transporting raw materials and products. On November 6, 2008, the Plaintiff cut the ground and cut the building area to 14.9 meters, reduced the construction area to 5,239.8 square meters (the manufacturing facility area: 4,92 square meters; 247.8 square meters); and filed an application for a new construction of a factory to minimize the cut volume from 46,965 cubic meters to 150,427 meters; the Defendant did not supplement to the Plaintiff on November 13, 2008,
(hereinafter “instant non-approval disposition”). C.
Accordingly, on December 4, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the non-approval disposition of this case with this court 2008Guhap2818, and the court of the first instance rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff that revoked the non-approval disposition of this case on September 22, 2009, and the Defendant appealed against this judgment, but the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2009Nu2152) also dismissed the Defendant’s appeal with the same purport as the first instance court on February 5, 2010.
However, in the final appeal filed by the Defendant against it (Supreme Court Decision 2010Du5035), the Supreme Court can be said to have the right to request the Defendant to approve the alteration regarding the increase in cut portion irrelevant to the application for approval of the establishment of a new factory under the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (hereinafter “Industrial Cluster Act”).