logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.10.11 2017구합3071
건축신고반려처분취소청구
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 January 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a building report (hereinafter “instant building report”) with the Defendant on January 6, 2017, in order to construct one kind of neighborhood living facilities with a total floor area of 18 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) within 149 square meters on the ground of Seocheon-si Cri (hereinafter “Cri”) (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On January 7, 2017, the Defendant: (a) determined the period for supplementation of the Plaintiff’s above application by January 17, 2017 as the period for supplementation; (b) demanded the first supplement of “(i) the consent of the superficiary of the instant land; (iii) the road is secured under the Building Act; and (iv) the delivery of the site crossing map of the instant land.” On January 18, 2017, the Defendant demanded the second supplement by setting the period for supplementation by February 28, 2017 as the period for supplementation.

C. The defendant Na

On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff rejected the instant building report (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the request for supplementation twice, such as the foregoing paragraph.

The instant disposition states that “if an objection is raised to the instant disposition, an administrative appeal or administrative litigation may be instituted.” The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, but the Chungcheongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission decided to dismiss the said claim on July 27, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Defendant’s principal safety defense is deemed to be a small-scale building with a total floor area of 18 square meters and with a height of 2.6 meters, and the Plaintiff is deemed to have obtained a building permit pursuant to Article 14(1)5 of the Building Act and Article 11(3)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act when filing a report with the Mayor. As such, the Plaintiff is subject to the instant disposition.

arrow