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 June 24, 2010, the Plaintiff is running a fish farming business with the trade name “B” after completing the registration of the livestock farming business (livestock breeding business).
B. On June 1, 201, the Plaintiff filed a report on the construction of a temporary building for the construction of a plastic house (hereinafter referred to as “instant temporary building”) with a total of 1,846 square meters on the ground of the Daejeon-gu and two lots (hereinafter “instant land”). On July 1, 2011, the Plaintiff accepted the said report on the construction and issued a certificate of the construction report on the temporary building to the Plaintiff on July 1, 201.
C. On June 3, 2013, the Plaintiff reported the extension of the retention period of the instant temporary building from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2015. The Defendant accepted the said extension report on June 28, 2013, and issued a certificate of completion of the extension of the retention period of the temporary building to the Plaintiff.
On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a report on the extension of the retention period of the instant temporary building from June 30, 2015 to June 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant extension report”). However, on August 10, 2013, the Defendant rejected the instant extension report on the ground that “the instant temporary building is located within the prohibited area of raising livestock and is inappropriate,” and the Plaintiff submitted to the Plaintiff each of the following subparagraphs (No. 4-1, hereinafter “the instant report”) that the Plaintiff would not extend additional retention period at the time of extension of the retention period of the temporary building in 2013.”
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] Gap's 1 to 4, Eul's 3-1, Eul's 4-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the provisions of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Building Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act, administrative agencies may refuse to accept the report on extension of the retention period of a temporary building on the grounds of substantive reasons, unless there exist any defects