logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.05.10 2017구합24082
건축신고(신축)반려처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a building report (hereinafter “instant report”) pursuant to Article 14 of the Building Act with a view to constructing a Class 1 neighborhood living facility (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the Daegu-gu Seo-gu Bdong (hereinafter “Bdong”) with a total floor area of 74.05 square meters (hereinafter “instant reported site”).

B. On April 18, 2017, the Defendant determined the period for supplementation as of May 19, 2017 and notified the Plaintiff of the following supplementary matters (hereinafter “instant supplementary matters”).

Since the public sewerage system is installed in the site and has been used for the passage of motor vehicles and residents for a long time, the width of the existing road shall be maintained.

C. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to extend the respective period of supplement on May 19, 2017 and July 19, 2017. Accordingly, the Defendant extended the period of supplement on two occasions on July 19, 2017 and September 19, 2017.

On September 20, 2017, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to implement the instant supplementary measures and notified the Plaintiff that the instant report would be returned if not supplemented by September 28, 2017.

E. On September 29, 2017, the Defendant rejected the instant report on the grounds that the instant supplement was not implemented.

(f) The statutes related to the disposition of this case are as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 6 evidence, Eul's 3 through 7 evidence (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion and the issues of this case

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant building will be constructed without an underground facility, and it does not affect the management of the underground public sewerage in the instant reported site.

In addition, although the instant report is actually used as a road in fact, it does not constitute a master land even if the said road is closed.

arrow