logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2019.05.15 2018누11589
건축허가반려통보취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the matters asserted by the plaintiff by adding or emphasizing the plaintiff in the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. The addition;

A. The designation of an area where the Plaintiff’s raising of livestock is restricted takes effect by publishing a topographic map. The Defendant’s publication of an area where raising livestock is restricted and a topographic map (hereinafter “instant topographic map publication”) is invalid on the ground that it does not follow lawful procedures and methods for the following grounds. As such, the designation of an area where raising livestock is restricted is also invalid.

Therefore, the instant disposition under the premise that the designation of the Defendant’s livestock breeding-restricted zone is valid should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

1) Although the Defendant, without making a public announcement of a topographic map, posted the topographic map itself in the official bulletin (Article 8(2) of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use), and at the same time, posted the same contents on the Gohap-gun Internet homepage (Article 7(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use). However, the Defendant asserted that a legitimate public announcement was made since the Defendant registered the topographic map in D, but the topographic map (Article 7) recorded in D was presented above the “cadastral map” and the “cadastral map” was immediately presented, and thus, it is contrary to Article 8(2) of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use and Guidelines on the Preparation of Topographical Drawings in the Districts, Districts, etc., where a zone where livestock raising is restricted and a zone where livestock raising is restricted is not directly indicated on the topographic map, and the contents of the topographic map are inappropriate due to lack of registration.

3..

arrow