2014Nu68029. Revocation of disposition rejecting permission to use and benefit to state property

A

The Minister of Gender Equality and Family

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap56253 decided October 10, 2014

June 18, 2015

July 23, 2015

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. The defendant's rejection of permission for use and benefit of State property shall be revoked on February 18, 2014 with respect to the sum of 34 square meters inboard D 34 square meters and 192 square meters in total of 192 square meters in width as to the sum of 192 square meters in parallel with each of the items in attached Form 1 drawings 1, 11, 10, 9, 17, 16, 15, 14, and 1 of 2,683 square meters in Gangseo-gu, Gangwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City and E forest 2,683 square meters in

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

○ Parts 6 3 to 13 of the 6th page are as follows.

【The following circumstances revealed in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings, i.e., the part for which the plaintiff's application for permission of use among the land in this case is the legal surface of the existing road (G training center access road) with a gradient of 35 to 60 degrees (No. 1 and 2), and it cannot be ruled out that the existing road is likely to collapse if it is opened by expanding the passage of 2 meters wide. ② The plaintiff asserts that the existing road does not pose a high risk of collapse even if it is opened by expanding the passage of 2 meters wide to the land in this case. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion solely on the statement of evidence Nos. 9 through 11, 19, and 21, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's application for permission of use cannot be accepted for the purpose of expanding the permission of use to the land in this case, which is a state-owned land, and it cannot be accepted for the use of the land in this case.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

The presiding judge and judges shall be appointed.

Judges Gangseo-gu

Judges Nam-yang

A person shall be appointed.