logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.09.19 2017구합71773
경관위원회 심의상정 거부처분 취소의 소
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. The Plaintiff is a corporation that aims to carry out a project for the construction and operation of a complex transfer facility, and is the operator of an urban planning facility project (railroad) where the C Project District (D Day; hereinafter “instant project site”) is the project site.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for landscape review with the Defendant to perform the extension construction of warehouse facilities (the logistics center, hereinafter “instant logistics facilities”) located in the instant project site.

C. On October 10, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the absence of deliberation by the landscape committee (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the following grounds.

Railroad facilities referred to in Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Railroad Construction Act are defined as "railroad tracks, station facilities (including logistics facilities, transfer facilities, sales facilities in buildings such as stations, etc.), and buildings and building facilities for the operation of railroads. Railroad logistics facilities are defined as "facilities related to the transportation of cargo using rolling stock" pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Act on Fostering and Supporting the Railroad Logistics Industry. Therefore, the E Station does not have a cargo terminal, and a cargo train cannot be deemed as facilities related to the transportation of cargo using rolling stock, as a high-speed high-speed railroad station with which only passengers can use only without operation, and thus, the deliberation by the landscape committee is not possible. [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute on the grounds of the deliberation by the landscape committee, Gap evidence No. 1 through 4, 6, 11, Eul evidence No. 4 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of all pleadings, as a whole.

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Since Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Railroad Construction Act provides for logistics facilities as one of the railroad facilities, it is clear that the instant logistics facilities constitute railroad facilities.

In addition, the possibility of building permission for the instant logistics facilities is possible.

arrow