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 November 9, 2001, the Defendant publicly notified the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notice B, stating a plan for the placement of liquefied petroleum gas filling stations for automobiles in the Seocho-gu development-restricted zone (hereinafter referred to as “heat stations”) and the permission standards, “previous public notice” (hereinafter referred to as “previous public notice”), and the plan for the placement of filling stations under Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] of the previous public notice, are as follows:
(hereinafter “instant placement plan”). The location length (km) of the route length by route (m) No. 50 I J 1 at the end point 1 C 4.82 D 30 D E 12C north side 4.82C 30 F G 13 H 13 H south side 1.84 H 1.84 50 IJ 1 at the time of the number of charging stations between the Gu.
B. On May 11, 2006, the Defendant revised the previous public notice to K on May 1, 2006, the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notice (hereinafter “instant public notice”). Article 2 of the Addenda of the instant public notice provides that “The subject of receipt of an application for installation of filling stations by the instant public notice shall be limited to the routes No. 2 and 3 of the instant public notice.”
C. On November 16, 201, the Plaintiff was a development restriction zone prescribed by the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Act”), and was granted land transaction permission for the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City L field 1,773 square meters and two lots (hereinafter “instant land”) located within the land transaction permission zone prescribed by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”). The Plaintiff purchased the instant land on November 18, 201 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 28th of the same month.
The Plaintiff located in the section No. 1 of the instant arrangement plan (hereinafter “instant section”) and applied for permission for charging station business to the Defendant on September 19, 2012, while the instant land was located in the section No. 1 of the instant arrangement plan.
(hereinafter “instant application for permission”) e.
On September 27, 2012, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for the following reasons.
The case is referred to as Gap evidence 2, hereinafter referred to as "the case."