logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.08.16 2016누34334
건축물용도변경(증축)반려처분 취소
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant changed the use of a building to the Plaintiffs on May 19, 2015 (extension).

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning the instant case is set forth in the third-party judgment of the first instance.

C. Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Article 3-1 of the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the appeal is dismissed.

The paragraphs are as follows:

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The alteration of use under Article 19 of the Building Act constitutes a binding act that requires permission if it satisfies the requirements prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations, and thus the disposition of this case where the defendant rejected the application for alteration of use of this case due to reasons not prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations

2) Even if the permission for the instant application for change of the purpose of use is discretionary, the funeral home in which the Plaintiffs intended to change the purpose of use (hereinafter “instant funeral home”).

3) Since the construction of the instant disposition cannot be deemed as impeding the surrounding environment or in harmony with the surrounding facilities, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion. (3) The Plaintiff C et al. was able to change the use of the instant disposition at the site around June 2013, since the Plaintiff et al. was purchased from the funeral hall building of this case and its site and the Plaintiff filed an application for change of the use of this case, the disposition of this case refused is unlawful against the principle of trust protection.

【Article 3-3(c) of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows.

According to Article 19(2)1 of the Building Act and Article 14(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act on the first argument, a person who intends to change the use of a building belonging to a group of neighborhood living facilities or residential business facilities into a funeral hall belonging to a group of higher groups as a funeral hall belonging to a group of facilities, such as industry, etc., shall obtain permission from the Mayor, etc., and the person who has the authority to grant permission to change the use of a building shall file

arrow