beta
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. On August 11, 2015, C, the owner of 202 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun B (hereinafter “B”) filed an application with the Defendant for the revocation of approval for use for non-purpose purposes on September 22, 2015, for the purpose of using it as dry field. The Defendant revoked the approval for use for non-purpose purposes on September 23, 2016, stating that “A civil petition for the joint use of the relevant ditch was received, but it was difficult to jointly use because the area was narrow in the area of the civil petitioner and the on-site verification, and the approval for use is withheld after the cancellation of the consultation for the purpose other than the purpose of resolving the dispute.”
B. Meanwhile, on September 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval of the use of the area of 90 square meters of D land (hereinafter “instant land”) for the purpose of using the said orchard as an access road to the said orchard, on the grounds that “the instant land is determined to have a dispute on both sides at the time of approval for use other than its original purpose as the site used by the owner of the adjacent land (B) land,” and on the grounds that “the instant land was determined to have been used for the purpose other than its original purpose pursuant to Article 34 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter “Civil Petitions Treatment Act”) and Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter “the result of deliberation before the Civil Petitions Mediation Committee”) was brought to the Plaintiff on October 19, 2016.”
C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, along with a written opinion stating that “C does not constitute an interested party under the status of being notified of the removal and reinstatement of facilities that revealed the unlawful use of the land of this case, and thus, is not likely to cause a dispute,” the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant again on November 2016.
Although an application for approval of use for purposes other than those mentioned in paragraph (1) has been filed, the defendant.