logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.08.23 2015구합66289
행위허가 신청 반려처분 취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A owns each of the following: D 1,653 square meters, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C, the F Miscellaneous land, and Plaintiff C, the sum of which is 3,235 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”; and Plaintiff A, including the said land, owns the land located G in Sii-si, Sii-si, with its lot number specified).

B. All of the instant lands are located within the development restriction zone, and Plaintiff A and B applied for a license for piling up construction materials, containers, etc. on each of the instant lands owned by the Defendant on October 22, 2014, and Plaintiff C on June 22, 2015.

C. On November 5, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff C’s application for permission to engage in activities on the grounds that each of the following grounds: “The purpose of a development restriction zone is to prevent any disorderly expansion of cities, to preserve the natural environment surrounding the city, and to ensure the healthy living environment for urban citizens. At this point, H Highway and I cross-sections with H Highway and enter the J Park and need public interest, such as providing a pleasant environment for park visitors and preserving natural scenery.”

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) D.

Plaintiff

A and B protested against this and filed an administrative appeal on January 16, 2015, and on March 25, 2015, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the claim of the above plaintiffs.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap's Nos. 1, 6, and 7 (including all family cards with virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The instant land is located far from the entrance of J Park at least 250 meters, and is separated from J Park by H Expressway, so the said park visitors cannot view the instant land in the said park. Therefore, the instant disposition was taken on the ground that it is necessary to provide park visitors with a pleasant environment.

arrow