2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On December 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit with the purport of newly constructing the building area of 293.59 square meters, total floor area of 1,088.91 square meters, and two multi-family housing (multi-household housing) with 15 households (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of 715 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “Duri”) on the ground.

B. On January 3, 2019, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiffs’ application for building permission for the following reasons.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Reasons for return

(a) The height of the retaining wall concerned, etc. from the existing retaining wall related to safety measures of the building site to the outer part of the building, or the basis of the building shall be planned to be less than the existing retaining wall;

(b) To specifically present the method of construction, etc., the load of which is not increased to the existing retaining wall according to the new construction plan;

(c) It is intended to create a site on the land (not ascertaining physical or functional defects of an existing retaining wall) that is likely to damage pursuant to Article 40 (4) of the Building Act, to present grounds for ensuring safety, such as erosion of the existing retaining wall, activities, transfer of the wall, distribution of the front and front oil, etc.;

(d) The fact that a construction act is intended on the upper part of the retaining wall (not less than 12 meters high) of the site adjacent to the application site and that there is no dispute over the safety of the retaining wall and the method of reinforcement (which is the ground for recognition), and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is based on Article 40 (4) of the Building Act.

However, according to the enforcement rules delegated by the above provision, where the structural safety of the relevant land is confirmed by a certified architect or a professional structural engineer, it is not necessary to take measures pursuant to the law, and the plaintiff also submitted a structural statement examining the safety of the instant land by a certified civil structural engineer.