logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.06.24 2014구합2128
골재채취허가신청불허처분취소
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 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to extract aggregate pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Aggregate Extraction Act (hereinafter “instant application”), as indicated in the following table, with respect to the land B and five parcels (the location and status of the land are indicated as drawings 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) owned by B, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to temporarily use farmland for other purposes under Article 36 of the Farmland Act, Article 37(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 32(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

(2) A person who occupies and uses the aggregate of 15,766 1,459 1,023 E and 1,023 892 3,372 G 407 G 407 G and 4,409 4,078 H 2,942 2,742 I and 12,650 12,314 fraternity 40,162 19,5412,351243: 22,135 aggregate extraction volume per day with sand and gravel collected 350 cubic meters: 54,474,474 cubic meters of the aggregate extraction volume without collecting 54,474,200 cubic meters of the machinery from the date of 22,135 aggregate extraction.

B. On February 3, 2014, the Defendant rejected the instant application to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant project plan is unreasonable in terms of uncertainty of a specific project plan and restoration plan for realizing the intended project, regional conditions, etc.” under Article 37(2) of the Farmland Act and Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

C. Although the Plaintiff sought the revocation of the instant disposition to the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, the Plaintiff was dismissed on June 30, 2014.

【Reason for Recognition】 Each description of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's claim of this case is for sale of aggregate collected and improved as good farmland after exchanging the place of the application of this case. The business purpose, method of collecting aggregate, etc. are specified in the business plan submitted at the time of the application of this case, and the provisions related to the Farmland Act are provided with the deposit system of restoration expenses, and thus restoration to farmland.

arrow