beta
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 of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes again in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4
[Supplementary judgment part] The defendant asserts that even if there are ten amusement facilities around the building of this case (at least 10 amusement taverns), it is permitted in 2010 to 2013, the early stage of the creation of a new city of C; on the other hand, about 23,00 population of C new city of 20,000 people, the population of C new city of 20,000 people was rapidly increased as of July 2015, as long as there were significant changes in residential environment, educational environment, etc., the refusal to change the purpose of use is justifiable in light of the current changed surrounding circumstances.
However, as the judgment of the court of first instance properly pointed out, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for change of use of the building surrounding the building of this case as amusement facilities until July 11, 2014, which was applied at a time that did not elapse since the defendant permitted the change of use as amusement facilities. It is difficult to deem that the surrounding conditions changed rapidly between the time the use was finally permitted and the plaintiff's application for change of use was finally permitted. Moreover, as the new city is planned to accommodate 80,00 population from the beginning as the defendant recognizes, it is merely a matter that the population increase and the change of the dwelling and educational environment accordingly could have been predicted by the defendant as a matter of course. Accordingly, the defendant applied for change of use of the neighboring building of this case by predicting the change of residential and educational environment, etc. due to the increase of population or considering it in advance.