logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.03 2017구합71001
건축허가신청반려처분취소
Text

1. A list 2 and 2 of the disposition (attached Form 1) issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 19, 2017, regarding the rejection of the application for building permit (extension, large-scale repair).

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 4, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased each building listed in the [Attachment 1] list (hereinafter “each building of this case”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and filed an application for permission for substantial repair (hereinafter “application of this case”) with the Defendant on the extension of each building listed in [Attachment 1] No. 1 and No. 1 and No. 4 of the [Attachment 1] list (hereinafter “each building”, No. 4] and each building listed in [Attachment 1] No. 2 and No. 3 (hereinafter “each building No. 2”, “No. 3 building”).

B. On September 19, 2017, the Defendant, on the ground that “the access road to each site of the instant building is a dead-end road with a length of at least 35 meters, and the width of the road is at least 6 meters, but has not been secured pursuant to Article 3-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, notified the Plaintiff of the return of the instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On February 7, 2006, the Defendant permitted extension of the building Nos. 1, 2, and 4 among each of the instant buildings. Since access roads to each of the instant buildings did not change thereafter, the Plaintiff properly expected to obtain a building permit for extension and substantial repair of each of the instant buildings, and purchased each of the instant buildings.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case against the building permission of February 7, 2006 is unlawful against the principle of trust protection.

B. Each of the instant buildings becomes at least 15 years after obtaining initial approval for use, and Article 5 of the Building Act and Article 6(1)6(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act shall be mitigated to apply the Building Act’s standards to each of the instant buildings. As such, extension and large-scale repair of each of the instant buildings shall be permitted.

C. Permission to construct (extension) February 7, 2006 to 1, 2, and 4 buildings among each of the instant buildings is governed by the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Specific Buildings.

arrow