(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.10.30 2015누22110

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.10.30 2015누22110

건축용도변경허가신청반려처분취소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes again in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

2. The Defendant’s additional determination is true that more than 10 amusement taverns exist in the vicinity of the instant building; however, most of them are permitted in 2010 to 2013, the early stage of creating a new D new city. Meanwhile, the population of D New Cities in 2010 was about 23,000 persons, but as of July 2015, the number of 70,000 persons increased rapidly. As long as there were significant changes in the residential environment, educational environment, etc., the Defendant’s refusal to change the purpose of use according to the current changed surrounding circumstances is justifiable.

However, as the lower court properly pointed out, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for change of use, which was filed after the lapse of two months, even though the Defendant permitted the change of use of a amusement facility to the neighboring building of the instant building by July 11, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s final change of use was difficult to deem that the surrounding conditions changed rapidly between the time when the use was permitted and the Plaintiff’s application for change of use was made. Furthermore, as the Defendant also recognized, the new city was planned to accommodate 80,00 population from the beginning, as it is a city planned to accommodate 80,000 population, the increase of population and the change in the residential and educational environment is merely a matter that the Defendant could have naturally predicted, and therefore, the Defendant applied for change of the use of the neighboring building of the instant building by predicting a change in the residential and educational environment due to a population increase or considering it in advance. In light of

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2015.11.18 2015누22134

-부산고등법원 2015.10.30 2015누22127

-수원지방법원 2018.01.26 2017노6915

-서울고등법원 2016.09.23 2016누36279

-서울고등법원 2017.05.19 2016누50343