2017Nu62121 Not to change the indication of the building ledger within a development restriction zone.

A

Magyeong-gun

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap1470 Decided July 6, 2017

November 2017, 200

January 10, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On February 2, 2016, the defendant revoked a disposition not to change the indication of a building within a development restriction zone against the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the submission of a part of the judgment of the first instance or the addition of a part of the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, the meaning of the language used in this case is identical to the judgment of the first instance court, and the meaning of the text of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

Pursuant to Article 19(3) of the Building Act, Article 18(1) of the Regulations on the entry, Management, etc. of the Dried Livestock Ledger, and Article 5 of the Rules on the entry, Management, etc. of the Dried Livestock Ledger shall be applied to the defendant, and Article 18(1) of the 2nd sentence for the second reason.

○ The following shall be added to the second and second reasons specified below 10:

D. The land B on which the instant building was located was designated as a water source protection area under Article 7 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act prior to the Plaintiff’s moving-in report to the Gyeonggi Pyeong-gun C Ri, and is an environment improvement zone under Article 14 of the Water-source Management Rules.

○○ For the second reasons, “Defendant Yang-gun” in Part 13 of the Second Purpose is to dismiss “Defendant Yang-si” as “Defendant”, and to delete “Defendants” in the last action.

○ 3rd part of the 5th page “Defendant’s “Defendant’s”, “Defendant’s 6th 1)” respectively, and “Defendant’s 6th 1st 1st 12” are deleted.

The 14th page 3 is deleted, the 15th page 14 is deleted, the 15th page 1 is written, and the 19th page 19 is written, and the 19th page "the defendant's "ro, 20th page 2)" is written, "the plaintiff's "the defendant's "the way, 20th page 2" is written," respectively.

Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development which grants permission for change of use to resting restaurants, bakeries, and general restaurants, the administrative rules of this case violate the principle of equality, but the development-restricted zones are designed to secure the healthy living environment for the urban citizens by preventing any disorderly expansion of cities and preserving the natural environment surrounding cities, while the development-restricted zones are intended to secure the quality of water sources and preserve the quality of water sources and to ensure the sound living environment for the urban citizens, and it does not necessarily have to be equally defined the scope of acts permitted within each district or the scope of acts permitted. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

The following provisions shall be added to the bottom of Article 7 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Management Rules. The definitions of terms used in these Rules shall be as follows:

4. The term "resident" means a person who resides in a protection zone and falls under any of the following items:

(a) A person who has resided in a protected area continuously before the designation thereof;

(b) A person who has resided in a protected area at the time of the designation of the protected area and has resided in the area for a period of not more than three years due to his/her occupation or other reasons; and a person who has resided in the area at the time of the designation of the protected area and has succeeded to family business of a person who has resided in the area due to inheritance while living in the area

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is dismissed as the plaintiff's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the judge and the marine judge

Judges Woo-ok

Judges Song Sung-sung