logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.03.23 2016구합10782
주택건설사업계획승인처분취소
Text

1. On April 5, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of approving the housing construction project plan rendered to the Intervenor joining the Defendant is revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The H Urban Development Project Association (hereinafter “H Association”) is an association established for an urban development project to be implemented in the area of approximately KRW 460,000 square meters of the first KRW 1,00,00 in Cheongju-si (hereinafter “instant urban development project”). A is a member of the H Association, which owns the land indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant land”) within the instant urban development project zone.

B. Around November 2012, HA prepared a replotting plan after obtaining authorization of an implementation plan for the instant urban development project by using the replotting method from the Defendant with regard to the instant urban development project. Around November 2012, HA submitted to HA a written intent to sell collective land substitution with the intent to sell the instant land as a collective land substitution, stating that the portion corresponding to J block (BL) out of the instant urban development project zone (hereinafter “instant project site”) shall be a collective land substitution method to build multi-family housing by establishing a collective land substitution method, and that members wished to provide a collective land substitution application for the instant project site and submit a written intent for sale from the members.

C. On April 25, 2014, H Union obtained authorization of a replotting plan from the Defendant, based on such content, and on June 19, 2015, after which the instant land, etc. was subject to collective replotting, the collective replotting of the instant land, etc. is 30,642 square meters in the instant project site, and obtained authorization for modification of a replotting plan that includes the content of designating it as a replotting.

Meanwhile, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) (hereinafter referred to as the “G Union”) purchased the instant project site and constructed an apartment building of 600 households on the ground thereof (hereinafter referred to as the “instant housing construction project”), which is a registered business entity pursuant to Article 10(2) of the former Housing Act, as a housing association authorized pursuant to Article 32 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 13805, Jan. 19, 2016; hereinafter the same).

arrow