2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff was the owner of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Miscellaneous District B 494 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and applied for a building permit to the Defendant around March 2014 in order to newly build a motor vehicle maintenance facility on the said ground. On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit from the Defendant as “Class II neighborhood living facilities (repair stores, and offices).”

B. After that, on June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to change the main purpose of the instant building to “automobile-related facilities (maintenance plant)” (hereinafter “instant application for change”) with the following relevant documents prepared by the Defendant, including design documents, etc., as stipulated in the Building Act, etc., to operate the automobile maintenance plant in the instant land.

C. Accordingly, on August 22, 2014, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for the instant change on the ground that “The permission for individual maintenance factories is anticipated to have difficulty realizing the comprehensive development plan for planned management and development promotion, so the permission for construction of maintenance factories until the comprehensive development plan (C-D regional living zone plan, etc.) of Seoul Special Metropolitan City was formulated.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 9 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted and filed an application for change of the instant case in compliance with the requirements stipulated by the relevant statutes, such as the Building Act, and the Defendant’s ground cited in the instant disposition does not constitute a serious public interest need, and there is no reason for restriction under the relevant statutes, and the Defendant’s disposition of the instant case in violation of the principle of equality, even though the Plaintiff permitted the registration of small automobile maintenance business in the vicinity of the instant

B. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. The facts of recognition 1.