the purpose of section 1

Chang-gu Gun (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

June 12, 1984

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on July 14, 1983 rejecting an application for building permit as construction No. 452-948 shall be revoked. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 8.9 without dispute in its establishment, for the purpose of the construction of the 4,845.96 square meters of the building on the ground level 6th 7th 1983, the plaintiff filed an application for a building permit under Article 5 (1) of the Building Act with the defendant on June 23, 1983 for the construction of the above building, on the ground that the defendant did not have the approval of the Do governor (referring to the construction of the Do governor under this Act, and the construction of other facilities) under Article 46 (6) of the Tourism Business Act and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on July 14, 1987.

The plaintiff argues that the disposition on the return of the building permit is unlawful, as the plaintiff did not obtain the permission from the Do Governor under Article 46 (6) of the Tourism Business Act. Thus, the defendant's disposition on the return of the building permit is justifiable. The defendant's disposition on the land adjacent to the building including this land is not in dispute between the parties, and Article 46 (6) of the Tourism Business Act provides that the person who wishes to construct or install other facilities within the tourist destination is required to obtain the permission from the Do Governor. This provision has the nature of the special law on the Building Act. Thus, the defendant's disposition on the building permit under Article 5 (1) of the Building Act is not proper, and it is clear that the plaintiff's application on the building permit is not appropriate for the Do Governor's permission under the Building Act. The defendant's disposition on the building permit under Article 5 (1) of the Building Act, which is not appropriate for the Do Governor's request on the construction permit under the Building Act, and it is not appropriate for the plaintiff's permission to return the building permit under the Building permit under the Building permit.

Therefore, the defendant's rejection of the application for building permit is illegal, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

may 3, 1984

Judges Lee Lee-soo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)