logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.07.23 2019구합5385
공장증설 승인거부 처분 취소청구의 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. On February 10, 2003, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of manufacturing ready-mixed and asphalt containers, retailing aggregate, etc. from October 2003, and operated a ready-mixed manufacturing factory with the size of 6,600 square meters in factory site area, 338.80 square meters in manufacturing facilities area, and 52.65 square meters in incidental facilities area, from October 2003 to October 5, 2003.

B. On December 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for the approval of factory enlargement with the purport that the factory site area is 8,424 square meters, the manufacturing facility area is 793.20 square meters, and the ancillary facility area is 306.97 square meters to the Defendant on the instant factory site (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On January 25, 2019, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the neighboring residents have great public interests, such as the right to live in a pleasant environment and the right to pursue happiness, rather than the interests of the applicants obtained from the economic activities of the company.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 17, 28 (including those with a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply)'s entries and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.

The Defendant, in violation of the duty to present reasons for disposition, did not indicate the relevant laws and regulations while making the instant disposition, and did not know how the grounds for disposition were subject to the instant disposition for any reason. Therefore, the Defendant violated the duty to present reasons under Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Article 40(1) of the Industrial Sites and Development Act (hereinafter “Industrial Sites Act”) and Article 36(2) of the integrated guidelines for the development of industrial sites (No. 2019-930, hereinafter “Industrial Sites Guidelines”) under the Industrial Sites and Development Act while pending the instant lawsuit.

arrow