2015Nu3409 Revocation of Non-permission for the liquefied petroleum gas filling business

A

The head of Yeonsu-gu

Gyeong Energy Co., Ltd.

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Guhap1684 Decided January 22, 2015

2015, 14 October 14

November 11, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of non-permission to charge liquefied petroleum gas on May 7, 2014 and September 5, 2014 to the plaintiff on September 5, 2014.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows: (a) the court of first instance has dismissed the following matters among the judgments of the court of first instance; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, and thus, (c) Article 8 (2) of

○ 13 pages 13 "The plaintiff is a resident at the time of designation of development restriction zones" are as follows:

【Plaintiff’s residing in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D from the time it was designated as a development restriction zone and operated a liquefied petroleum gas filling station for automobiles in the Plaintiff’s business site located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City H

The following is added to 12 pages 13 of the 13th page "....... (The foregoing shall apply even if considering the above circumstances) 014 pages 2 of the 14th page "(the 2nd page 4, 2014 non-permission of September 4, 2014," as "the instant disposition."

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant did not make a determination on the necessity of installing two charging stations, and the instant disposition was taken solely on the basis of the pre-determination of application without any grounds, even though it decided to grant permission to anyone in consideration of the traffic volume of the relevant road and the convenience in the use of the relevant facilities in accordance with the purport of the relevant provision, and thus, it deviates from and abused discretionary power.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, as recognized by the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant did not need to install two charging stations within the development restriction zone in light of the area of the development restriction zone in Yeonsu-gu Incheon in the instant disposition, road conditions, etc. (Evidence No. 1, 10, 17, etc.). In light of the fact that the Defendant: (a) deemed that both the Plaintiff’s project site and the light energy project site meet the traffic volume of the relevant road and the convenience in the use of the relevant facilities; and (b) exercised discretionary power on such premise, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition was in violation of the law of deviation from and abuse of discretionary power. The Plaintiff’s assertion also cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Kim Gung-sung

Judgment of the Supreme Court