logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.16 2016구합2503 (1)
건축물 사용승인 신청 반려처분 취소
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 May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a construction report, including permission for development of the instant land, permission for and reporting on conversion of mountainous district, and reporting on the construction of structures, in the form of complex civil petitions, with the Defendant on May 12, 2014, in order to construct a building on the first floor size of storage facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) on three lots of land, including Gyeonggi-gu land B (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”).

B. On June 18, 2014, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff documents (e.g., photographs, etc.) verifying the final connection of the drainage pipes of the instant building. Around that time, the Defendant received from the Plaintiff a “sewage survey document” (No. 4, 4/10 pages) indicating that a series of multiples is connected to the public sewerage system from the point of the instant land, such as the drawing below (hereinafter “instant drawing”) and received the said building report, on July 3, 2014.

C. On August 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval for the use of the instant building, and attached “construction completion drawing” (No. 5, No. 5/5 pages) indicating a series of multiples from the point of the instant drawings in the order of “”.

On September 5, 2016, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff, on September 5, 2016, to supplement civil petition documents to the effect that “the drainage system drawings and photographs from the final drainage point” are submitted to the Plaintiff by September 12, 2016, on the ground that the drainage route and the final drainage point are different from the final drainage point. The Defendant urged the Plaintiff to supplement the same purport on September 13, 2016, but the Plaintiff did not submit supplementary documents.

E. On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff rejected the Defendant’s application for approval of the use of the instant building as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant return disposition”). The return notice following the application for approval for the use of the title building (new construction):

3. With respect to an application for approval for use (new construction) of a building B in Korea with a thickness, supplementary notice shall be given to the ecological permission division-C ( September 5, 2016).

arrow